International Critical Commentary
on tin Dob jkriptutts of tbc (£Uo anb
|Uto (Lcstammts.
UNDER THE PRESENT EDITORSHIP OF
The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
Sometime Master of University College, Durham
Planned and for Years Edited by
The Late Rev. Professor SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt.
The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
The Late Rev. Professor CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.
The International Critical Commentary
A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON THE
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
BY
JAMES MOFFATT
D.D., D.Litt., Hon. M.A. (Oxoo.)
Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED
FOR
T & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
First Edition . . . 1924
Latest Reprint . . 1963
The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved
TO THE MEMORY OF
THREE SCOTTISH EXPOSITORS OF nP02 EBPAIOY2
A. B. BRUCE,
A. B. DAVIDSON,
AND
MARCUS DODS.
rrt
PREFACE.
It is ten years since this edition was first drafted.
Various interruptions, of war and peace, have prevented
me from finishing it till now, and I am bound to acknow-
ledge the courtesy and patience of the editor and the
publishers. During the ten years a number of valuable
contributions to the subject have appeared. Of these as
well as of their predecessors I have endeavoured to take
account ; if I have not referred to them often, this has
been due to no lack of appreciation, but simply because,
in order to be concise and readable, I have found it
necessary to abstain from offering any catena of opinions
in this edition. The one justification for issuing another
edition of IJ/ao? 'Efipaiowi seemed to me to lie in a fresh
point of view, expounded in the notes — fresh, that is, in
an English edition. I am more convinced than ever
that the criticism of this writing cannot hope to make
any positive advance except from two negative con-
clusions. One is, that the identity of the author and of
his readers must be left in the mist where they already
lay at the beginning of the second century when the
guess-work, which is honoured as " tradition," began. The
other is, that the situation which called forth this remark-
able piece of primitive Christian thought had nothing to do
with any movement in contemporary Judaism. The writer
of 17/30? 'EfipaLovs knew no Hebrew, and his readers were
in no sense 'Efipaioi. These may sound paradoxes. I
agree with those who think they are axioms. At any
ix
X PREFACE
rate such is the point of view from which the present
edition has been written ; it will explain why, for example,
in the Introduction there is so comparatively small space
devoted to the stock questions about authorship and date.
One special reason for the delay in issuing the book
has been the need of working through the materials
supplied for the criticism of the text by von Soden's
Schriften des Neuen Testaments (191 3) and by some
subsequent discoveries, and also the need of making a
first-hand study of the Wisdom literature of Hellenistic
Judaism as well as of Philo. Further, I did not feel
justified in annotating ITpo? 'Efipaiow; without reading
through the scattered ethical and philosophical tracts
and treatises of the general period, like the De Mundo
and the remains of Teles and Musonius Rufus.
"A commentary," as Dr. Johnson observed, "must arise
from the fortuitous discoveries of many men in devious
walks of literature." No one can leave the criticism of a
work like JTpo? 'Efipaiovs after twelve years spent upon
it, without feeling deeply indebted to such writers as
Chrysostom, Calvin, Bleek, Riehm, and Riggenbach, who
have directly handled it. But I owe much to some
eighteenth-century writings, like L. C. Valckenaer's Scholia
and G. D. Kypke's Observationes Sacrae, as well as to
other scholars who have lit up special points of inter-
pretation indirectly. Where the critical data had been
already gathered in fairly complete form, I have tried
to exercise an independent judgment ; also I hope some
fresh ground has been broken here and there in ascertain-
ing and illustrating the text of this early Christian
masterpiece.
JAMES MOFFATT.
Glasgow, 15M February 1924.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Preface ....... ix
Introduction ..... xiii-lxxvi
§ i. Origin and Aim ..... xiii
§ 2. Religious Ideas ..... xxx
§ 3. Style and Diction . . . . lvi
§ 4. Text, Commentaries, etc. . . . lxiv
Commentary ..... 1-247
Indexes ...... 248-264
I. Greek . . . . . .248
II. Subjects and Authors .... 259
III. Quotations, etc., of the Old Testament . , 264
INTRODUCTION.
§ i. Origin and Aim.
(i.)
During the last quarter of the first century a.d. a little master-
piece of religious thought began to circulate among some of the
Christian communities. The earliest trace of it appears towards
the end of the century, in a pastoral letter sent by the church
of Rome to the church of Corinth. The authorship of this
letter is traditionally assigned to a certain Clement, who
probably composed it about the last decade of the century.
Evidently he knew IIpos c E/3pcuovs (as we may, for the sake of
convenience, call our writing) ; there are several almost verbal
reminiscences (cp. Dr. A. J. Carlyle in The New Testament in the
Apostolic Fathers, pp. 44 f., where the evidence is sifted). This
is beyond dispute, and proves that our writing was known at
Rome during the last quarter of the first century. A fair speci-
men of the indebtedness of Clement to our epistle may be seen
in a passage like the following, where I have underlined the
allusions :
36 2 " 5 os wv a7ravyao-/u.a rrj<; ucyttAojcrw^s avrov, toctovtw u«'£a)v
iarlv dyyeAcov, ocrw StacpopojTepoj/ ovo/jlo. KexXrjpovo-
pnqxev' y€ypa7rrai yap outws"
6 7roitov tous dyyeAovs avrov irvcv/xaTa
/cat tovs AeiToupyovs airov 7rupc>9 <f>Xoya.
t7ri Se t<S vlw avrov outojs €i7rev 6 oecnroTrj^'
vlos fxov et crv,
eya> 0-rjp.epov ytyevvrjKa. o~e'
alrr}o~ai Trap* ip.ov, /ecu Scocrto croi \0vt] ttjv KXrjpovo/xiav
o~ov /ecu rrjv Kardo"^€o-iV crov ra nepara 717s y^S.
/ecu irdXiv Ae'yci 7rpos airov'
xiv THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Kadov €K Se^tcov p.ov,
ecos av 6u) tovs i^dpovs aov viroirohiov twv ttoSCjv <rov.
Tives ovv oi i)(9poi ; ol <pav\oi kcll dyTiTacrao/xevot t<3
deX-q/xaTL avrov.
To this we may add a sentence from what precedes :
36 1 'Jr/crovv Xpurrbv rbv dpx^pia 2 18 bivarai rots ireipafofiivois /3or)-
tQiv Trpo<T<popuiv Vfiuiv, rbv TrpoaT&TTjv dijffai. . . . 3 1 KaTavo-Zjcrare rbv
kclI fHorjdbv rr)s airdevelas t)/j,Qv. &tt6<ttoXov nal dp^iep^a ttjs dpoXoylas
r)/j.u>v 'Irjaovv.
The same phrase occurs twice in later doxologies, 8id tov
apxupewi kclI irpoo-TOLTOv (tcuv \f/v)(C>v r)p.G)V, 6 1 8 ) (r)p\u)v, 64 1 ) 'Irja-ov
Xpia-Tov. There is no convincing proof that Ignatius or
Polykarp used IIpos 'E/fycuous, but the so-called Epistle of
Barnabas contains some traces of it (e.g. in 4 9f - 5 5, 6 and 6 17 " 19 ).
Barnabas is a second-rate interpretation of the OT ceremonial
system, partly on allegorical lines, to warn Christians against
having anything to do with Judaism ; its motto might be taken
from 3 6 Ivd p.7) Trpo<rpr)<r<T<j>p.e6a. ws TrpoarjXvrot (v. I. iTnjXvrot) tw
(Ktivoiv vo/xo). In the homily called 2 Clement our writing is
freely employed, e.g. in
II 8 SxrTt, &8eX<poi fiov, fid) 8i\J/vx&- IO 28 Karix^^f t^\v bfioXoylav ttjs
/i*p, d\\d iXirlffavres virop.elvu/j.ei', iVa £Xwl8os &K\ii>rj, irnrrbs yap 6 iirayyei-
itai rbv fiicdbu KO/j.tawfieda. iriarbs yap Xafxevos.
iffTiv b irrayyeiKd/nevos ras avrifiiffdlas
iiroSibbvat ixdiXTtf) tpywv afrrou.
I 8 airodtixevot. £k€ivo & irepiKetfieda 12 1 roaovrov tx ovT( * irepiKelfitvov
vi(pos rr) avrov OeXrjcrei. t))juv v£(f>os fMaprijpwv, 6yxov air odifxevoi
irdera.
16 4 irpoaevxi) Si £k tcaXijs awei- 13 18 irpocrevxecrOe irepl r)p.Qv ireidb-
Srjacus. /xtOa yap Sri KaXrjv <rvvelbr)<nv tx o P €v -
" It seems difficult, in view of the verbal coincidences, to
resist the conclusion that the language of 2 Clement is un-
consciously influenced by that of Hebrews" (Dr. A. J. Carlyle
in The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, p. 126). As
2 Clement is, in all likelihood, a product either of the Roman
or of the Alexandrian church, where IIpos 'E/Jpaious was early
appreciated, this becomes doubly probable.
There is no reason why Justin Martyr, who had lived at
Rome, should not have known it ; but the evidence for his use
of it (see on 3 1 n 4 etc.) is barely beyond dispute. Hermas,
however, knew it ; the Shepherd shows repeated traces of it (cf.
Zahn's edition, pp. 439 f.). It was read in the North African
church, as Tertullian's allusion proves (see p. xvii), and with par-
ticular interest in the Alexandrian church, even before Clement
INTRODUCTION xv
wrote (cp. p. xviii). Clement's use of it is unmistakable, though
he does not show any sympathy with its ideas about sacrifice. 1
Naturally a thinker like Marcion ignored it, though why it shared
with First Peter the fate of exclusion from the Muratorian canon
is inexplicable. However, the evidence of the second century
upon the whole is sufficient to show that it was being widely
circulated and appreciated as an edifying religious treatise,
canonical or not.
(ii.)
By this time it had received the title of IIpos 'Efipaiovs.
Whatever doubts there were about the authorship, the writing
never went under any title except this in the later church ; which
proves that, though not original, the title must be early.
'EfipatoL 2 was intended to mean Jewish Christians. Those who
affixed this title had no idea of its original destination ; other-
wise they would have chosen a local term, for the writing is
obviously intended for a special community. They were struck
by the interest of the writing in the OT sacrifices and priests,
however, and imagined in a superficial way that it must have
been addressed to Jewish Christians. 'Efipaioi was still an
archaic equivalent for 'IouScuoi ; and those who called our writing
ETpos 'E/Jpcuovs must have imagined that it had been originally
meant for Jewish (i.e. Hebrew-speaking) Christians in Palestine,
or, in a broader sense, for Christians who had been born in
Judaism. The latter is more probable. Where the title origin-
ated we cannot say ; the corresponding description of i Peter
as ad gentes originated in the Western church, but IIpos 'Efipaiovs
is common both to the Western and the Eastern churches.
The very fact that so vague and misleading a title was added,
proves that by the second century all traces of the original
destination of the writing had been lost. It is, like the Ad
Familiares of Cicero's correspondence, one of the erroneous
titles in ancient literature, " hardly more than a reflection of the
impression produced on an early copyist " (W. Robertson Smith).
The reason why the original destination had been lost sight of,
was probably the fact that it was a small household church — not
one of the great churches, but a more limited circle, which may
have become merged in the larger local church as time went on.
Had it been sent, for example, to any large church like that at
Rome or Alexandria, there would have been neither the need
1 Cp. R. B. Tollington's Clement of Alexandria, vol. ii. pp. 225 f.
2 It is quite impossible to regard it as original, in an allegorical sense, as
though the writer, like Philo, regarded 6 'E/Spaios as the typical believer who,
a second Abraham, migrated or crossed from the sensuous to the spiritual
world. The writer never alludes to Abraham in this connexion ; indeed he
never uses 'E/Jpalos at all.
xvi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
nor the opportunity for changing the title to IIpos 'Efipaiovs.
Our writing is not a manifesto to Jewish Christians in general,
or to Palestinian Jewish Christians, as 7rpos 'Efipaiovs would
imply ; indeed it is not addressed to Jewish Christians at all.
Whoever were its original readers, they belonged to a definite,
local group or circle. That is the first inference from the writing
itself; the second is, that they were not specifically Jewish
Christians. The canonical title has had an unfortunate influence
upon the interpretation of the writing (an influence which is still
felt in some quarters). It has been responsible for the idea,
expressed in a variety of forms, that the writer is addressing
Jewish Christians in Palestine or elsewhere who were tempted,
e.g., by the war of a.d. 66-70, to fall back into Judaism ; and
even those who cannot share this view sometimes regard the
readers as swayed by some hereditary associations with their
old faith, tempted by the fascinations of a ritual, outward system
of religion, to give up the spiritual messianism of the church.
All such interpretations are beside the point. The writer never
mentions Jews or Christians. He views his readers without any
distinction of this kind ; to him they are in danger of relapsing,
but there is not a suggestion that the relapse is into Judaism, or
that he is trying to wean them from a preoccupation with Jewish
religion. He never refers to the temple, any more than to cir-
cumcision. It is the tabernacle of the pentateuch which interests
him, and all his knowledge of the Jewish ritual is gained from the
LXX and later tradition. The LXX is for him and his readers
the codex of their religion, the appeal to which was cogent,
for Gentile Christians, in the early church. As Christians, his
readers accepted the LXX as their bible. It was superfluous to
argue for it ; he could argue from it, as Paul had done, as a
writer like Clement of Rome did afterwards. How much the
LXX meant to Gentile Christians, may be seen in the case of a
man like Tatian, for example, who explicitly declares that he
owed to reading of the OT his conversion to Christianity (Ad
Graecos, 29). It is true that our author, in arguing that Christ
had to suffer, does not appeal to the LXX. But this is an
idiosyncrasy, which does not affect the vital significance of the
LXX prophecies. The Christians to whom he was writing had
learned to appreciate their LXX as an authority, by their mem-
bership in the church. Their danger was not an undervaluing
of the LXX as authoritative ; it was a moral and mental danger,
which the writer seeks to meet by showing how great their re-
ligion was intrinsically. This he could only do ultimately by
assuming that they admitted the appeal to their bible, just as they
admitted the divine Sonship of Jesus. There may have been
Christians of Jewish birth among his readers ; but he addresses
INTRODUCTION xvii
his circle, irrespective of their origin, as all members of the
People of God, who accept the Book of God. The writing, in
short, might have been called ad gentes as aptly as First Peter,
which also describes Gentile Christians as 6 Aao's, the People
(cp. on 2 17 ). The readers were not in doubt of their religion.
Its basis was unquestioned. What the trouble was, in their case,
was no theoretical doubt about the codex or the contents of
Christianity, but a practical failure to be loyal to their principles,
which the writer seeks to meet by recalling them to the full mean-
ing and responsibility of their faith ; naturally he takes them
to the common ground of the sacred LXX.
We touch here the question of the writer's aim. But, before
discussing this, a word must be said about the authorship.
Had Upbs "Eppalovs been addressed to Jews, the title would have been
intelligible. Not only was there a [avva~\yuyr) 'Epp[alwi>] at Corinth (cp.
Deissmann's Light from the East, pp. 13, 14), but a avvayuyy] Aipptwv at Rome
(cp. Schiirer's Geschichte des Jiid. Volkes 3 , iii. 46). Among the Jewish
ffvvaywyal mentioned in the Roman epitaphs (cp. N. Muller's Die jiidische
Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom . . ., Leipzig, 1912, pp. nof. ), there
is one of 'Efiptioi, which Miiller explains as in contrast to the synagogue of
" vernaclorum " (BepvaicXoi, fSepvaKK-qirioi), i.e. resident Jews as opposed to
immigrants ; though it seems truer, with E. Bormann [Wiener Studien, 1912,
pp. 3S3 f. ), to think of some Kultgemeinde which adhered to the use of
Hebrew, or which, at any rate, was of Palestinian origin or connexion.
(iii.)
The knowledge of who the author was must have disappeared
as soon as the knowledge of what the church was, for whom he
wrote. Who wrote ITpos 'E/Jpatovs ? We know as little of this
as we do of the authorship of The Whole Duty of Man, that
seventeenth-century classic of English piety. Conjectures sprang
up, early in the second century, but by that time men were no
wiser than we are. The mere fact that some said Barnabas,
some Paul, proves that the writing had been circulating among
the adespota. It was perhaps natural that our writing should
be assigned to Barnabas, who, as a Levite, might be sup-
posed to take a special interest in the ritual of the temple —
the very reason which led to his association with the later
Epistle of Barnabas. Also, he was called mos Trapa.K\rjcreu)<;
(Ac 4 36 ), which seemed to tally with He 13 22 (rov \6yov r>}?
7rapaKA7jo-€ws), just as the allusion to "beloved" in Ps 127 2
( = 2 S i2 24f -) was made to justify the attribution of the psalm
to king Solomon. The difficulty about applying 2 3 to a man
like Barnabas was overlooked, and in North Africa, at any rate,
the (Roman ?) tradition of his authorship prevailed, as Tertullian's
words in de pudicitia 20 show : " volo ex redundantia alicuius
etiam comitis apostolorum testimonium superinducere, idoneum
b
xviii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistrorum. Extat
enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis auctoritati
viri, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituent in abstinentiae tenore :
! aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potes-
tatem?' (i Co 9 6 ). Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola
Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum. Monens itaque
discipulos.omissis omnibus initiis, ad perfectionem magis tendere,"
etc. (quoting He 6 4f -). What appeals to Tertullian in IIpos
'Efipaiovs is its uncompromising denial of any second repentance.
His increasing sympathy with the Montanists had led him to
take a much less favourable view of the Shepherd of Hermas
than he had once entertained ; he now contrasts its lax tone
with the rigour of IIpos 'Efipaiovs, and seeks to buttress his
argument on this point by insisting as much as he can on the
authority of IIpos 'Efipaiovs as a production of the apostolic
Barnabas. Where this tradition originated we cannot tell.
Tertullian refers to it as a fact, not as an oral tradition ; he
may have known some MS of the writing with the title Bapvdfia
71-pos 'E/Jpatous (iirio-ToXri), and this may have come from Montanist
circles in Asia Minor, as Zahn suggests. But all this is guessing
in the dark about a guess in the dark.
Since Paul was the most considerable letter-writer of the
primitive church, it was natural that in some quarters this
anonymous writing should be assigned to him, as was done
apparently in the Alexandrian church, although even there
scholarly readers felt qualms at an early period, and endeavoured
to explain the idiosyncrasies of style by supposing that some
disciple of Paul, like Luke, translated it from Hebrew into
Greek. This Alexandrian tradition of Paul's authorship was
evidently criticized in other quarters, and the controversy drew
from Origen the one piece of enlightened literary criticism which
the early discussions produced. 'On 6 x a P aKT VP T V^ ^ € '£ €aj< > "Js
7rpo5 E/?paious iTriyeypa.p.p,evr]s eTricroAry? ovk e^et to iv Aoyu>
iSudtikov tov o.tto(Tt6\ov, 6p.oXoyrjo-avTO<; kavTov IStwrrjv etvai toj
Aoyw (2 Co II 6 ), TOvreoTi Tjj <ppdaei, aXXa £<tt]v fj iirLo-ToXr)
(rvvOiaei ttjs Ae'^cws 'EAA^iHKioTe'pa, 7ras 6 e7rto"rap.€VOS Kpiveiv
(ppdcretDv oia<£opas op.oXoyrjo'ai av. trdXiv re av on rd voi)p.aTa
TTj'i f.TTLO'ToXrj'i 9aVfxd<Tld lo~TL, KCU OV ScVTtpa TWV aTTOO'T oXlkWV
op.oXoyovfj.evwy ypappaTun', kou tovto av avp-cprjaai etvai dXrj$k<; 7ras
6 ■n-poo~t)(wv ty) dvayvwaei rfj aTroo~ToXiKrj. . . . 'Eya; oi. diro<paivo-
/xei'o? iLiroip. av on rd p.\v voi/p.aTa tou a7roo"T(>Aou ecrriV, r] St
<f>pao~L<; kol 17 o~vv6eo~i<s a7rop.vrjp.ovevaavTOS Ttvos to. a7ro(TToAt/ca, xai
d)0"ir€ptl o"^oAtoypa0^o-avTos tivos to. elprjfieva viro tov SiSao-xdXov.
€i Tts ovv eKKXrjata t^ti Tavrrjv Tr]v iTTLO-ToXrjv u>S HavXov, avrrj
€v8oKip.€LTU) koI iirl tovtu). oi yap tlxfj ol dp^aloi dVSpes <I>s HavXov
airrjv 7rapaSfS(j)Kao-i. ti's St 6 ypdi//as tt/v eVicrToA^v, to p.tv dXr/Ots
INTRODUCTION xix
0€os oTScv (quoted by Eusebius, H.E. vi. 25. n-14). 1 Origen is
too good a scholar to notice the guess that it was a translation
from Hebrew, but he adds, 17 8« tts rjp.a.<; <f>6da-aaa la-ropia, iiro
Tivwv filv \tyovT<i>v, on K\v;/xr/s 6 y€i'6[xevo<» iiri(TKOiro<i Puyxaicuv
lypaxpi tt/v e7rto-ToAr/v, vtto Tivajv Se on AoukSs 6 ypaif/as to
ciayye'Aiov Kai ras Ilpa^cis. The idea that Clement of Rome
wrote it was, of course, an erroneous deduction from the echoes
of it in his pages, almost as unfounded as the notion that Luke
wrote it, either independently or as an amanuensis of Paul — a
view probably due ultimately to the explanation of how his
gospel came to be an apostolic, canonical work. Origen yields
more to the " Pauline " interpretation of IIpos 'E/Jpcuous than is
legitimate ; but, like Erasmus at a later day, 2 he was living in
an environment where the "Pauline" tradition was almost a
note of orthodoxy. Even his slight scruples failed to keep the
question open. In the Eastern church, any hesitation soon
passed away, and the scholarly scruples of men like Clement of
Alexandria and Origen made no impression on the church at
large. It is significant, for example, that when even Eusebius
comes to give his own opinion {H.E. iii. 38. 2), he alters the
hypothesis about Clement of Rome, and makes him merely
the translator of a Pauline Hebrew original, not the author
of a Greek original. As a rule, however, Hp6<s 'EfSpawv; was
accepted as fully Pauline, and passed into the NT canon of the
Asiatic, the Egyptian, and the Syriac churches without question.
In the Syriac canon of a.d. 400 (text as in Souter's Text and
Canon of NT, p. 226), indeed, it stands next to Romans in
the list of Paul's epistles (see below, § 4). Euthalius, it is true,
about the middle of the fifth century, argues for it in a way
that indicates a current of opposition still flowing in certain
quarters, but ecclesiastically ITpos 'E/?paioi>s in the East as a
Pauline document could defy doubts. The firm conviction of
the Eastern church as a whole comes out in a remark like that
of Apollinarius the bishop of Laodicea, towards the close of the
fourth century : irov yiypairrcn. on xapaKTrjp Itrri ttJs twocrrao-ttos
6 vlo<; ; Trapa. tw diroa-rokw UavXuy iv rfj 7rpos E/Jpatou?. Ovk
iKK\r)(TLd£eTai. 'A<f> ov Karr]yye\r] to cvayycAiov Xpto-Tov, IlavAou
civai Tr€Tri(TTevTai r] ItruTToXr) {Dial, de sancta Tri?i. 922).
It was otherwise in the Western church, where IIpos 'EfSpaCov:
was for long either read simply as an edifying treatise, or, if
regarded as canonical, assigned to some anonymous apostolic
1 There is a parallel to the last words in the scoffing close of an epigram
in the Greek Anthology (ix. 135) : yp&ipe tis ; olSe Beds' tLvos etvenev ; ol5e Kai
airrSs.
a "Ut a stilo Pauli, quod ad phrasin attinet, longe lateque discrepat, ita
ad spiritum ac pectus Paulinum vehementer accedit."
XX THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
writer rather than to Paul. Possibly the use made of IIpos
'Efipaiovs by the Montanists and the Novatians, who welcomed
its denial of a second repentance, compromised it in certain
quarters. Besides, the Roman church had never accepted the
Alexandrian tradition of Paul's authorship. Hence, even when,
on its merits, it was admitted to the canon, there was a strong
tendency to treat it as anonymous, as may be seen, for example,
in Augustine's references. Once in the canon, however, it
gradually acquired a Pauline prestige, and, as Greek scholar-
ship faded, any scruples to the contrary became less and less
intelligible. It was not till the study of Greek revived
again, at the dawn of the Reformation, that the question was
reopened.
The data in connexion with the early fortunes of Tlpbs 'Efipalovs in church
history belong to text-books on the Canon, like Zahn's Geschichte d. NT
Kanons, i. 283 f., 577 f. , ii. 160 f., 358 f. ; Leipoldt's Geschichte d. NT /Canons,
i. pp. i88f., 219 f. ; and Jacquier's Le Nouveau Testament dans UEglise
Chrttienne, i. (191 1 ).
Few characters mentioned in the NT have escaped the
attention of those who have desired in later days to identify
the author of IIpos 'Eftpaiovs. Apollos, Peter, Philip, Silvanus,
and even Prisca have been suggested, besides Aristion, the
alleged author of Mk 16 9 " 20 . I have summarized these views
elsewhere (Introd. to Lit. of NT. % , pp. 438-442), and it is super-
fluous here to discuss hypotheses which are in the main due to
an irrepressible desire to construct NT romances. Perhaps our
modern pride resents being baffled by an ancient document, but
it is better to admit that we are not yet wiser on this matter
than Origen was, seventeen centuries ago. The author of IIpos
'E/3paiovs cannot be identified with any figure known to us in
the primitive Christian tradition. He left great prose to some
little clan of early Christians, but who they were and who he
was, to fx.lv aXrjOis #eos oTSev. To us he is a voice and no more.
The theory which alone explains the conflicting traditions is that
for a time the writing was circulated as an anonymous tract.
Only on this hypothesis can the simultaneous emergence of
the Barnabas and the Paul traditions in different quarters be
explained, as well as the persistent tradition in the Roman
church that it was anonymous. As Zahn sensibly concludes,
" those into whose hands IIpos 'Eftpaiovs came either looked
upon it as an anonymous writing from ancient apostolic times, or
else resorted to conjecture. If Paul did not write it, they
thought, then it must have been composed by some other
prominent teacher of the apostolic church. Barnabas was such
a man." In one sense, it was fortunate that the Pauline
hypothesis prevailed so early and so extensively, for apart from
INTRODUCTION xxi
this help it might have been difficult for ITpos 'Eftpatovs to win
or to retain its place in the canon. But even when it had been
lodged securely inside the canon, some Western churchmen still
clung for a while to the old tradition of its anonymity, 1 although
they could do no more than hold this as a pious opinion.
The later church was right in assigning II/jos 'Efipaiow; a
canonical position. The original reasons might be erroneous
or doubtful, but even in the Western church, where they con-
tinued to be questioned, there was an increasing indisposition
to challenge their canonical result.
(iv.)
Thrown back, in the absence of any reliable tradition, upon
the internal evidence, we can only conclude that the writer was
one of those personalities in whom the primitive church was
more rich than we sometimes realize. " Si l'on a pu comparer
saint Paul a Luther," says M^ndgoz, "nous comparerions
volontiers l'auteur de l'Epitre aux H£breux a Melanchthon."
He was a highly trained SiSao-KaAos, perhaps a Jewish Christian,
who had imbibed the philosophy of Alexandrian Judaism before
his conversion, a man of literary culture and deep religious
feeling. He writes to what is apparently a small community or
circle of Christians, possibly one of the household-churches, to
which he was attached. For some reason or another he was
absent from them, and, although he hopes to rejoin them before
long, he feels moved to send them this letter (i3 23f> ) to rally
them. It is possible to infer from 13 24 (see note) that they
belonged to Italy ; in any case, IIp6s 'Efipaiovs was written either
to or from some church in Italy. Beyond the fact that the
writer and his readers had been evangelized by some of the
disciples of Jesus (2 3 - 4 ), we know nothing more about them.
The words in 2 3 - 4 do not mean that they belonged to the second
generation, of course, in a chronological sense, for such words
would have applied to the converts of any mission during the
first thirty years or so after the crucifixion, and the only other
inference to be drawn, as to the date, is from passages like io 32f --
and 13 7 , viz. that the first readers of IIpos 'E/fyxuW were not
neophytes ; they had lived through some rough experiences, and
indeed their friend expects from them a maturity of experience
and intelligence which he is disappointed to miss (5 nt ) ; also,
1 According to Professor Souter ( Text and Canon of NT, p. 190) the
epistle is ignored by the African Canon (c. 360), Optatus of Mileue in
Numidia (370-385), the Acts of the Donatist Controversy, Zeno of Verona,
an African by birth, and Foebadius of Agen (06. post 392), while " Ambrosi-
aster" (fourth century?) "uses the work as canonical, but always as an
anonymous work."
xxil THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
their original leaders have died, probably as martyrs (cp. on 13 7 ).
For these and other reasons, a certain sense of disillusionment
had begun to creep over them. Ilpos 'E/?pcu'ous is a Xoyos
TrapaKX-qcreoy;, to Steady and rally people who are Treipa£6fievoi,
their temptation being to renounce God, or at least to hesitate
and retreat, to relax the fibre of loyal faith, as if God were too
difficult to follow in the new, hard situation. Once, at the
outset of their Christian career, they had been exposed to mob-
rioting (io 32f -), when they had suffered losses of property, for the
sake of the gospel, and also the loud jeers and sneers which
pagans and Jews alike heaped sometimes upon the disciples.
This they had borne manfully, in the first glow of their en
thusiasm. Now, the more violent forms of persecution had
apparently passed ; what was left was the dragging experience
of contempt at the hand of outsiders, the social ostracism and
shame, which were threatening to take the heart out of them.
Such was their rough, disconcerting environment. Unless an
illegitimate amount of imagination is applied to the internal data,
they cannot be identified with what is known of any community
in the primitive church, so scanty is our information. Least of
all is it feasible to connect them with the supposed effects of the
Jewish rebellion which culminated in a.d. 70. IIpos 'Efipaiov;
cannot be later than about a.d. 85, as the use of it in Clement
of Rome's epistle proves ; how much earlier it is, we cannot
say, but the controversy over the Law, which marked the Pauline
phase, is evidently over.
It is perhaps not yet quite superfluous to point out that the use of the
present tense (e.g. in j 8 - 20 8 3f - 9 8 ' - 13 10 ) is no clue to the date, as though this
implied that the Jewish temple was still standing. The writer is simply
using the historic present of actions described in scripture. It is a literary
method which is common in writings long after A.D. 70, e.g. in Josephus,
who observes (c. Apiojt, i. 7) that any priest who violates a Mosaic regulation
airriydpevrai n^re rots /3w/j.ois iraplcTTaadat fi^re fJLerix e <- v T V* &X\rjs ayurTelas
(so Ant. iii. 6. 7 -I2 > x i y - 2 - 2 > etc.). Clement of Rome similarly writes as
though the Mosaic ritual were still in existence (40-41, t<£ yhp dpxiepei (diai
XtiTovpylai dtdo/xivai elcriv . . . kclI Aevtrais tdiai SiaKoviai iirlKfivrai . . .
■n-poarptpovrai OvcrLat if ' IepoixraX^M fJ.6vy), and the author of the Ep. ad
Diognet. 3 writes that ol Si ye dv<rtais avry di al/mros kclI kvIvtjs ko.1 oXokclvtw-
fidruv iirtTe\cii> oW/xfvoi Kal rai/rats rats rifj.aU avrbv ytpalpeiv, ov8ii> fioi
SoKodcrt. dicupipeiv tu>v e/s to. Kuxpa tt)v avrrjv ivdeiKvv/xivoiv (piXoTi/xlav. The
idea that the situation of the readers was in any way connected with the crisis
of A.D. 66-70 in Palestine is unfounded. Upbs 'EfipaLovs has nothing to do
with the Jewish temple, nor with Palestinian Christians. There is not a
syllable in the writing which suggests that either the author or his readers
had any connexion with or interest in the contemporary temple and ritual of
Judaism ; their existence mattered as little to his idealist method of argu-
ment as their abolition. When he observes (8 1S ) that the old Siad-qicr) was
iyybs a<pavia-fj.oO, all he means is that the old regime, superseded now by
Jesus, was decaying even in Jeremiah's age.
INTRODUCTION xxili
(v.)
The object of IIpos 'E/?paiou? may be seen from a brief
analysis of its contents. The writer opens with a stately para-
graph, introducing the argument that Jesus Christ as the Son of
Clod is superior (kpclttw) to angels, in the order of revelation
(i 1 -2 18 ), and this, not in spite of but because of his incarnation
and sufferings. He is also superior (xpurTwv) even to Moses
(3 1 " 6 ")) as a Son is superior to a servant. Instead of pursuing
the argument further, the writer then gives an impressive bible
reading on the 95th psalm, to prove that the People of God
have still assured to them, if they will only have faith, the divine
Rest in the world to come (3 6b -4 13 ). Resuming his argument,
the writer now begins to show how Jesus as God's Son is superior
to the Aaronic high priest (4 14 -5 10 ). This is the heart of his
subject, and he stops for a moment to rouse the attention of his
readers (5 11 -6 20 ) before entering upon the high theme. By a
series of skilful transitions he has passed on from the Person of
the Son, which is uppermost in chs. 1-4, to the Priesthood
of the Son, which dominates chs. 7-8. Jesus as High Priest
mediates a superior (kpcittwv) order of religion or haOriK-q than
that under which Aaron and his successors did their work for the
People of God, and access to God, which is the supreme need of
men, is now secured fully and finally by the relation of Jesus to
God, in virtue of his sacrifice (6 20 -8 13 ). The validity of this
sacrifice is then proved (c^-io 18 ); it is absolutely efficacious, as
no earlier sacrifice of victims could be, in securing forgiveness
and fellowship for man. The remainder of the writing (io 19 -i3 24 )
is a series of impressive appeals for constancy. The first (10 19 - 31 )
is a skilful blend of encouragement and warning. He then
appeals to the fine record of his readers (io 32f -), bidding them be
worthy of their own past, and inciting them to faith in God by
reciting a great roll-call of heroes and heroines belonging to God's
People in the past, from Abel to the Maccabean martyrs (n 1 " 40 ).
He further kindles their imagination and conscience by holding
up Jesus as the Supreme Leader of all the faithful (12 1 - 3 ), even
along the path of suffering; besides, he adds (12 4 - 11 ), suffering
is God's discipline for those who belong to his household. To
prefer the world (12 12 - 17 ) is to incur a fearful penalty; the one
duty for us is to accept the position of fellowship with God, in a
due spirit of awe and grateful confidence (i2 18 ' 29 ). A brief note
of some ethical duties follows (13 1 ' 7 ), wi th a sudden warning
against some current tendencies to compromise their spiritual
religion (13 8 - 16 ). A postscript (I3 17-24 ), with some personalia,
ends the epistle.
It is artificial to divide up a writing of this kind, which is not
xxiv THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
a treatise on theology, and I have therefore deliberately abstained
from introducing any formal divisions and subdivisions in the
commentary. The flow of thought, with its turns and windings,
is best followed from point to point. So far as the general plan
goes, it is determined by the idea of the finality of the Christian
revelation in Jesus the Son of God. This is brought out (A) by
a proof that he is superior to angels (i 1 ^ 18 ) and Moses (3 1_6a ),
followed by the special exhortation of 3 6b -4 13 . Thus far it is
what may be termed the Personality of the Son which is discussed.
Next (B) comes the Son as High Priest (4 14 ~7 28 ), including the
parenthetical exhortation of 5 n -6 20 . The (C) Sacrifice of this
High Priest in his Sanctuary then ^-io 18 ) is discussed, each of
the three arguments, which are vitally connected, laying stress
from one side or another upon the absolute efficacy of the
revelation. This is the dominant idea of the writing, and it
explains the particular line which the writer strikes out. He
takes a very serious view of the position of his friends and
readers. They are disheartened and discouraged for various
reasons, some of which are noted in the course of the epistle.
There is the strain of hardship, the unpleasant experience of
being scoffed at, and the ordinary temptations of immorality,
which may bring them, if they are not careful, to the verge of
actual apostasy. The writer appears to feel that the only way to
save them from ruining themselves is to put before them the
fearful and unsuspected consequences of their failure. Hence
three times over the writer draws a moving picture of the fate
which awaits apostates and renegades (6 4f - io 26f - i2 15f -). But the
special line of argument which he adopts in 5-10 18 must be
connected somehow with the danger in which he felt his friends
involved, and this is only to be explained if we assume that their
relaxed interest in Christianity arose out of an imperfect concep-
tion of what Jesus meant for their faith. He offers no theoretical
disquisition ; it is to reinforce and deepen their conviction of the
place of Jesus in religion, that he argues, pleads, and warns,
dwelling on the privileges and responsibilities of the relationship
in which Jesus had placed them. All the help they needed, all
the hope they required, lay in the access to God mediated by
Jesus, if they would only realize it.
This is what makes the writing of special interest. In the
first place (a) the author is urged by a practical necessity to
think out his faith, or rather to state the full content of his faith,
for the benefit of his readers. Their need puts him on his
mettle. " Une chose surtant," says Anatole France, "donne le
l'attrait a la pensee des hommes : c'est l'inquidtude. Un esprit
qui n'est point anxieux m'irrite ou m'ennuie." In a sense all
the NT writers are spurred by this anxiety, but the author
INTRODUCTION xxv
of ITpos 'Efipaiow; pre-eminently. It is not anxiety about his
personal faith, nor about the prospects of Christianity, but about
the loyalty of those for whom he feels himself responsible ; his
very certainty of the absolute value of Christianity makes him
anxious when he sees his friends ready to give it up, anxious on
their behalf, and anxious to bring out as lucidly and persuasively
as possible the full meaning of the revelation of God in Jesus.
What he writes is not a theological treatise in coM blood, but
a statement of the faith, alive with practical interest. The
situation of his readers has stirred his own mind, and he bends
all his powers of thought and emotion to rally them. There is a
vital urgency behind what he writes for his circle. But (6), more
than this, the form into which he throws his appeal answers to
the situation of his readers. He feels that the word for them is
the absolute worth of Jesus as the Son of God ; it is to bring
this out that he argues, in the middle part of his epistle, so
elaborately and anxiously about the priesthood and sacrifice of
Jesus. The idealistic conception of the two spheres, the real
and eternal, and the phenomenal (which is the mere o-Kid and
vTToSeiyfjLa, a Trapa/3o\rj, an avriTwrov of the former), is applied to
the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which inaugurates and realizes the
eternal SLaOrJK-rj between God and man. In a series of contrasts,
he brings out the superiority of this revelation to the OT ?)iadr)Ky]
with its cultus. But not because the contemporary form of the
latter had any attractions for his readers. It is with the archaic
o-K-qvf) described in the OT that he deals, in order to elucidate
the final value of Jesus and his sacrifice under the new hiaQ-qK-q,
which was indeed the real and eternal one. To readers like his
friends, with an imperfect sense of all that was contained in their
faith, he says, " Come back to your bible, and see how fully it
suggests the positive value of Jesus." Christians were finding
Christ in the LXX, especially his sufferings in the prophetic
scriptures, but our author falls back on the pentateuch and the
psalter especially to illustrate the commanding position of Jesus
as the Son of God in the eternal Sia6^Krj, and the duties as well
as the privileges of living under such a final revelation, where
the purpose and the promises of God for his People are realized
as they could not be under the OT hiaO-qK-q. Why the writer
concentrates upon the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus in this
eternal order of things, is due in part to his general conception
of religion (see pp. xliiif.). For him there could be no religion
without a priest. But this idea is of direct service to his readers,
as he believes. Hence the first mention of Jesus as dpxtcpeu's
occurs as a reason for loyalty and confidence (2 14f -). Nothing
is more practical in religion than an idea, a relevant idea power-
fully urged. When the writer concentrates for a while upon
xxvi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
this cardinal idea of Jesus as apxuptvs, therefore, it is because
nothing can be more vital, he thinks, for his friends than to show
them the claims and resources of their faith, disclosing the
rich and real nature of God's revelation to them in his Son.
Access to God, confidence in God, pardon for sins of the past,
and hope for the future — all this is bound up with the 8ia9r)Kr) of
Christ, and the writer reveals it between the lines of the LXX,
to which as members of the People of God his friends naturally
turned for instruction and revelation. This SiaOrJKf), he argues,
is far superior to the earlier one, as the Son of God is superior to
angels and to Moses himself; nay more, it is superior in efficacy,
as the real is superior to its shadowy outline, for the sacrifice
which underlies any Sta^xv; is fulfilled in Christ as it could not
be under the levitical cultus. The function of Christ as high
priest is to mediate the direct access of the People to God, and
all this has been done so fully and finally that Christians have
simply to avail themselves of its provisions for their faith and
need.
What the writer feels called upon to deal with, therefore, is
not any sense of disappointment in his readers that they had not
an impressive ritual or an outward priesthood, nor any hankering
after such in contemporary Judaism ; it is a failure to see that
Christianity is the absolute religion, a failure which is really
responsible for the unsatisfactory and even the critical situation
of the readers. To meet this need, the writer argues as well as
exhorts. He seeks to show from the LXX how the Christian
faith alone fulfils the conditions of real religion, and as he
knows no other religion than the earlier phase in Israel, he takes
common ground with his readers on the LXX record of the first
hiaOrjKiq, in order to let them see even there the implications and
anticipations of the higher.
But while the author never contemplates any fusion of
Christianity with Jewish legalism, and while the argument betrays
no trace of Jewish religion as a competing attraction for the
readers, it might be argued that some speculative Judaism had
affected the mind of the readers. No basis for this can be
found in i3 9f \ Yet if there were any proselytes among the
readers, they may have felt the fascination of the Jewish system,
as those did afterwards who are warned by Ignatius (ad Philad.
6, etc.), "Better listen to Christianity from a circumcised Chris-
tian than to Judaism from one uncircumcised." " It is mon-
strous to talk of Jesus Christ and tov8cu£«v" (ad Ma^nes. 10).
This interpretation was put forward by Haring (Studien und
Kritiken, 1891, pp. 589 f.), and it has been most ingeniously
argued by Professor Purdy (Expositor 91 , xix. pp. 123-139), who
thinks that the emphasis upon "Jesus" means that the readers
INTRODUCTION xxvii
were exposed to the seductions of a liberal Judaism which offered
an escape from persecution and other difficulties by presenting
a Christ who was spiritual, divorced from history ; that this
liberal, speculative Judaism came forward as "a more developed
and perfected type of religion than Christianity " ; and that,
without being legalistic, it claimed to be a traditional, ritualistic
faith, which was at once inward and ceremonial. The objection
to such interpretations, 1 however, is that they explain ignotutn
per ignotius. We know little or nothing of such liberal Judaism
in the first century, any more than of a tendency on the part of
Jewish Christians to abandon Christianity about a.d. 70 for their
ancestral faith. Indeed any influence of Jewish propaganda,
ritualistic or latitudinarian, must be regarded as secondary, at
the most, in the situation of the readers as that is to be inferred
from IIpos 'E/3patovs itself. When we recognize the real method
and aim of the writer, it becomes clear that he was dealing with
a situation which did not require any such influence to account
for it. The form taken by his argument is determined by the
conception, or rather the misconception, of the faith entertained
by his friends ; and this in turn is due not to any political or
racial factors, but to social and mental causes, such as are
sufficiently indicated in IIpos 'Efipaiovs itself. Had the danger
been a relapse into Judaism of any kind, it would have implied
a repudiation of Jesus Christ as messiah and divine — the very
truth which the writer can assume ! What he needs to do is not
to defend this, but to develop it.
The writing, therefore, for all its elaborate structure, has a
spontaneous aim. It is not a homily written at large, to which
by some afterthought, on the part of the writer or of some editor,
a few personalia have been appended in ch. 13. The argu-
mentative sections bear directly and definitely upon the situa-
tion of the readers, whom the writer has in view throughout,
even when he seems to be far from their situation. Which brings
us to the problem of the literary structure of IIpos 'E/Spai'ous.
(vi.)
See especially W. Wrede's monograph, Das literarische Rdtsel d. Hebraer-
briefs (1906), with the essays of E. Burggaller and R. Perdelwitz in Zeitschrift
fur Nettlest. Wissenschaft (1908, pp. Iiof. ; 1910, pp. 59 f., 105 f.); V.
Monod's De titulo epistulae vulgo ad Hebratos inscriptae (1910) ; C. C
1 Cp. , further, Professor Dickie's article in Expositor* \ v. pp. 371 f. The
notion that the writer is controverting an external view of Christ's person,
which shrank, e.g., from admitting his humiliation and real humanity, had
been urged by Julius Kogel in Die Verborgenheit Jesu als des Messias
(Greifenswald, 1909) and in Der Sohn und die Sbhtu, ein exegetische Studit
zu Heb. 2 5-18 (1904).
xxviii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Torrey's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature (191 1), pp. 137-156;
J. W. Slot's De letterknndige vorm v. d. Brief aan de hebrder (1912), with
J. Quentel's essay in Revue Biblique (1912, pp. 50 f. ) and M. Jones' paper
in Expositor*, xii. 426 f.
The literary problem of IIpos 'Efipalovs is raised by the
absence of any address and the presence of personal matter in
ch. 13. Why (a) has it no introductory greeting? And why (b)
has it a postscript ? As for the former point (a), there may have
been, in the original, an introductory title. IIpos 'E/?paious opens
with a great sentence (i lf ), but Eph i 3f - is just such another,
and there is no reason why the one should not have followed a
title-address any more than the other. 1 It may have been lost
by accident, in the tear and wear of the manuscript, for such
accidents are not unknown in ancient literature. This is, at
any rate, more probable than the idea that it was suppressed
because the author (Barnabas, Apollos?) was not of sufficiently
apostolic rank for the canon. Had this interest been operative,
it would have been perfectly easy to alter a word or two in the
address itself. Besides, IIpos 'E/?paious was circulating long
before it was admitted to the canon, and it circulated even after-
wards as non-canonical ; yet not a trace of any address, Pauline
or non-Pauline, has ever survived. Which, in turn, tells against
the hypothesis that such ever existed — at least, against the
theory that it was deleted when the writing was canonized. If
the elision of the address ever took place, it must have been
very early, and rather as the result of accident than deliberately.
Yet there is no decisive reason why the writing should not have
begun originally as it does in its present form. Nor does this
imply (b) that the personal data in ch. 13 are irrelevant. IIpos
'E{3paiov<; has a certain originality in form as well as in content ;
it is neither an epistle nor a homily, pure and simple. True,
down to 12 29 (or 13 17 ) there is little or nothing that might not
have been spoken by a preacher to his audience, and Valckenaer
(on 4 3 ) is right, so far, in saying, " haec magnifica ad Hebraeos
missa dissertatio oratio potius dicenda est quam epistola." Yet
the writer is not addressing an ideal public ; he is not composing
a treatise for Christendom at large. It is really unreal to ex-
plain away passages like 5 llf - io 32f - i2 4f * and 13 1 " 9 as rhetorical
abstractions.
IIpos 'Efipaiovs was the work of a Sioao-*aAos, who knew how
to deliver a Ao'yos 7rapa*cAT/o-€ws. Parts of it probably represent
what he had used in preaching already (e.g. 3 7 ). But, while it
has sometimes the tone of sermon notes written out, it is not a
1 Ep. Barnabas begins with ade\<pol, oOrws del r]u.ds (ppovdv irepl 'Itjo-ou
XpuTTov (is wepl Oeou, etc. ; 2 Clement starts with a greeting, x^peTe, viol
xal Ovyartpes, iv 6v6fiari. Kvplov rov dyair^o-avro! ti/xSls fr clpfyrQ,
INTRODUCTION xxix
sermon in the air. To strike out 1319-22-24 or j2i-~.1e-19.22f.
(Torrey) l does not reduce it from a letter or epistle to a sermon
like 2 Clement. Thus, e.g., a phrase like 11 s2 (see note) is as
intelligible in a written work as in a spoken address. It is only
by emptying passages like 5 llf * and io 32f - of their full meaning
that anyone can speak of the writer as composing a sermon at
large or for an ideal public. Part of the force of 5 uf -, e.g., is due
to the fact that the writer is dealing with a real situation, pleading
that in what he is going to say he is not writing simply to display
his own talent or to please himself, but for the serious, urgent
need of his readers. They do not deserve what he is going to
give them. But he will give it ! A thoroughly pastoral touch,
which is lost by being turned into a rhetorical excuse for de-
ploying some favourite ideas of his own. According to Wrede,
the author wrote in i3 18 - 19 on the basis of (Philem 22 ) 2 Co
jii. 12 t0 m ake it appear as though Paul was the author, and then
added 13 23 on the basis of Ph 2 19 - 23 - 24 ; but why he should mix
up these reminiscences, which, according to Wrede, are contra-
dictory, it is difficult to see. Had he wished to put a Pauline
colour into the closing paragraphs, he would surely have done
it in a lucid, coherent fashion, instead of leaving the supposed
allusions to Paul's Roman imprisonment so enigmatic. But, though
Wrede thinks that the hypothesis of a pseudonymous conclusion
is the only way of explaining the phenomena of ch. 13, he agrees
that to excise it entirely is out of the question. Neither the
style nor the contents justify such a radical theory, 2 except on
the untenable hypothesis that 1-12 is a pure treatise. The
analogies of a doxology being followed by personal matter (e.g.
2 Ti 4 18 , 1 P 4 11 etc.) tell against the idea that IIpos 'Efipaiovs
must have ended with 13 21 , and much less could it have ended
with 13 17 . To assume that the writer suddenly bethought him,
at the end, of giving a Pauline appearance to what he had
written, and that he therefore added i3 22f -, is to credit him with
too little ability. Had he wished to convey this impression, he
would certainly have gone further and made changes in the
earlier part. Nor is it likely that anyone added the closing
verses in order to facilitate its entrance into the NT canon by
bringing it into line with the other epistles. The canon was
drawn up for worship, and if ITpos 'E(3paiovs was originally a
discourse, it seems very unlikely that anyone would have gone
1 To excise I3 1 " 7 as a "formless jumble of rather commonplace admoni-
tions " is a singular misjudgment.
2 The linguistic proof is cogently led by C. R. Williams in the Journal
of Biblical Literature (1911), pp. 129-136, who shows that the alleged
special parallels between He 13 and Paul are neither so numerous nor so
significant as is commonly supposed, and that the only fair explanation of
He 13 as a whole is that it was written to accompany 1-12.
xxx THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
out of his way, on this occasion, to add some enigmatic personal
references. In short, while IIpos 'Efipaiovs betrays here and
there the interests and methods of an effective preacher, the
epistolary form is not a piece of literary fiction ; still less is it
due (in ch. 13) to some later hand. It is hardly too much to
say that the various theories about the retouching of the 13th
chapter of IIoos 'Efipaiovs are as valuable, from the standpoint
of literary criticism, as Macaulay's unhesitating belief that Dr.
Johnson had revised and retouched Cecilia.
§ 2. The Religious Ideas.
In addition to the text-books on NT theology, consult Riehm's Lehrbegriff
des Hebrderbriefs i (1867), W. Milligan's Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood
of our Lord (1891), Menegoz's La Thiologie de FEpitre aux Hibreux (1894),
A. Seeberg's Der Tod Christi (1895), A. B. Bruce's The Epistle to the
Hebrews (1899), G. Milligan's The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews
(1899), G. Vos on "The Priesthood of Christ in Hebrews" {Princeton
Theological Review, 1907, pp. 423 f., 579 f.), Du Bose's Highpriesthood and
Sacrifice (1908), A. Nairne's The Epistle of Priesthood (1913), H. L.
MacNeill's Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1914), H. A. A.
Kennedy's Theology of the Epistles (1919, pp. 182-221), and E. F. Scott's
The Epistle to the Hebrews (1922).
Many readers who are not children will understand what Mr
Edmund Gosse in Father and Son (pp. 89 f.) describes, in telling
how his father read aloud to him the epistle. " The extraordinary
beauty of the language — for instance, the matchless cadences and
images of the first chapter — made a certain impression upon my
imagination, and were (I think) my earliest initiation into the
magic of literature. I was incapable of defining what I felt, but
I certainly had a grip in the throat, which was in its essence a
purely aesthetic emotion, when my father read, in his pure, large,
ringing voice, such passages as 'The heavens are the work of
Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou remainest, and they
shall all wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt Thou
fold them up, and they shall be changed ; but Thou art the same,
and Thy years shall not fail.' But the dialectic parts of the
epistle puzzled and confused me. Such metaphysical ideas as
'laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works'
and 'crucifying the Son of God afresh' were not successfully
brought down to the level of my understanding. . . . The
melodious language, the divine forensic audacities, the magnifi-
cent ebb and flow of argument which make the Epistle to the
Hebrews such a miracle, were far beyond my reach, and they
only bewildered me." They become less bewildering when they
are viewed in the right perspective. The clue to them lies in the
INTRODUCTION xxxi
philosophical idea which dominates the outlook of the writer, and
in the symbolism which, linked to this idea, embodied his
characteristic conceptions of religion. We might almost say that,
next to the deflecting influence of the tradition which identified
our epistle with the Pauline scheme of thought and thereby
missed its original and independent contribution to early Christi-
anity, nothing has so handicapped its appeal as the later use of it
in dogmatic theology. While the author of IIpos 'E/3/Wous often
turned the literal into the figurative, his theological interpreters
have been as often engaged in turning the figurative expressions
of the epistle into what was literal. A due appreciation of
the symbolism has been the slow gain of the historical method
as applied to the classics of primitive Christianity. There is
no consistent symbolism, indeed, not even in the case of the
apxt-epev? ; in the nature of the case, there could not be. But
symbolism there is, and symbolism of a unique kind.
(i.)
The author writes from a religious philosophy of his own —
that is, of his own among the NT writers. The philosophical
element in his view of the world and God is fundamentally
Platonic. Like Philo and the author of Wisdom, he interprets
the past and the present alike in terms of the old theory (cp. on
8 5 10 1 ) that the phenomenal is but an imperfect, shadowy trans-
cript of what is eternal and real. He applies this principle to the
past. What was all the Levitical cultus in bygone days but a
faint copy of the celestial archetype, a copy that suggested by its
very imperfections the future and final realization ? In such
arguments (chs. 7-10) he means to declare "that Christianity
is eternal, just as it shall be everlasting, and that all else is only
this, that the true heavenly things of which it consists thrust
themselves forward on to this bank and shoal of time, and took
cosmical embodiment, in order to suggest their coming ever-
lasting manifestation." 1 The idea that the seen and material is
but a poor, provisional replica of the unseen and real order of
things (to. iirovpdvia, to. iv rots ovpavols, to. p.77 craXevofieva), pervades
IIpos 'E/?paious. Thus faith (n lf *) means the conviction, the
practical realization, of this world of realities, not only the belief
that the universe does not arise out of mere <paiv6p.eva, but the
conviction that life must be ordered, at all costs, by a vision of
the unseen, or by obedience to a Voice unheard by any outward
ear. Similarly the outward priest, sanctuary, and sacrifices of
the ancient cultus were merely the shadowy copy of the real, as
manifested in Jesus with his self-sacrifice, his death being, as
1 A. B. Davidson, Biblical and Literary Essays (p. 317).
xxxii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Sabatier says, " une fonction sacerdotale, un acte transcendanl
de purification rituelle, accompli hors de l'humanite' " {La Doctrine
de r Expiation, p. 37). Such is the philosophical strain which
permeates IIpos 'Eftpaiow;. The idea of heavenly counterparts is
not, of course, confined to Platonism ; it is Sumerian, in one of
its roots (cp. on 8 5 ), and it had already entered apocalyptic.
But our author derives it from his Alexandrian religious philo-
sophy (transmuting the koct/xos votjtos into the more vivid and
devotional figures of an oikos or 7rdAis 6eov, a 7raTpis or even a
crKTqvr] a\r)$Lvq), just as elsewhere he freely uses Aristotelian ideas
like that of the tcAos or final end, with its TeAeiWcs or sequence of
growth, and shows familiarity with the idea of the efts (5 14 ). The
tcAciWis (see on 5 9 ) idea is of special importance, as it denotes
for men the work of Christ in putting them into their proper
status towards God (see on 2 10 ). " By a single offering he has
made the sanctified perfect for all time" (T£TeAetWev, io 14 ), the
offering or irpoa-cpopd being himself, and the "perfecting" being
the act of putting the People into their true and final relation
towards God. This the Law, with its outward organization of
priests and animal sacrifices, could never do ; "as the Law has a
mere shadow of the bliss that is to be, instead of representing
the reality of that bliss (viz. the ' perfect ' relationship between
God and men), it can never perfect those who draw near " (io 1 ).
This gives us the focus for viewing the detailed comparison
between the levitical sacrifices and priests on the one hand and
the KpeiTTutv Jesus. "You see in your bible," the writer argues,
"the elaborate system of ritual which was once organized for the
forgiveness of sins and the access of the people to God. All
this was merely provisional and ineffective, a shadow of the
Reality which already existed in the mind of God, and which is
now ours in the sacrifice of Jesus." Even the fanciful argument
from the priesthood of Melchizedek (6 20 -7 17 ) — fanciful to us, but
forcible then — swings from this conception. What the author
seeks to do is not to prove that there had been from the first a
natural or real priesthood, superior to the levitical, a priesthood
fulfilled in Christ. His aim primarily is to discredit the levitical
priesthood of bygone days ; it was anticipated in the divine
order by that of Melchizedek, he shows, using a chronological
argument resembling that of Paul in Gal 3 8f -, on the principle
that what is prior is superior. But what leads him to elaborate
specially the Melchizedek priesthood is that it had already played
an important role in Jewish speculation in connexion with the
messianic hope. Philo had already identified Melchizedek out-
right with the Logos or possibly even with the messiah. Whether
the author of IIpos 'E/?/Wous intends to contradict Philo or not,
he takes a different line, falling back upon his favourite psalm,
INTRODUCTION xxxiii
the noth, which in the Greek version, the only one known to
him, had put forward not only the belief that messiah was icpevs €is
tov auova Kara ttjv rd$iv MeA^io-coV*, but the Alexandrian belief
in the pre-existence of messiah (v. 8 ck yao-rpos vpo iwatpopov
iieyewrja-d <rc). Here then, by Alexandrian methods of exegesis,
in the pentateuch text combined with the psalm, he found
scripture proof of an original priesthood which was not levitical,
not transferable, and permanent. This priesthood of Melchize-
dek was, of course, not quite a perfect type of Christ's, for it
did not include any sacrifice, but, as resting on personality,
not on heredity, 1 it did typify, he held, that eternal priesthood of
the Christ which was to supersede the levitical, for all the ancient
prestige of the latter. As this prestige was wholly biblical for
the writer and his readers, so it was essential that the disproof of
its validity should be biblical also. Though he never uses either
the idea of Melchizedek offering bread and wine to typify the
elements in the eucharist, in spite of the fact that Philo once
allegorized this trait (de Leg. Alleg. iii. 25), or the idea of
Melchizedek being uncircumcised (as he would have done, had
he been seriously arguing with people who were in danger of
relapsing into contemporary Judaism), he does seem to glance
at the combination of the sacerdotal and the royal functions.
Like Philo, though more fully, he notices the religious signi-
ficance of the etymology " king of righteousness " and " king of
peace," the reason being that throughout his argument he
endeavours repeatedly to preserve something of the primitive
view of Jesus as messianic king, particularly because the idea of
the divine /WiAcia plays next to no part in his scheme of
thought. Sometimes the combination of the sacerdotal and
royal metaphors is incongruous enough, although it is not
unimpressive (e.g. io 12 - 13 ). Primarily it is a survival of the
older militant messianic category which is relevant in the first
chapter (see i 8f ), but out of place in the argument from the
priesthood ; the reference is really due to the desire to reaffirm
the absolute significance of Christ's work, and by way of anticipa-
tion he sounds this note even in 7 1 - 2 . Later on, it opens up
into an interesting instance of his relation to the primitive
eschatology. To his mind, trained in the Alexandrian philo-
sophy of religion, the present world of sense and time stands
over against the world of reality, the former being merely
the shadow and copy of the latter. There is an archetypal
1 The writer is trying to express an idea which, as Prof. E. F. Scott
argues (pp. 207 f.), "underlies all our modern thought — social and political
as well as religious," viz. that true authority is not prescriptive but personal ;
"the priesthood which can bring us nearer God must be one of inherent
character and personality."
c
xxxiv THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
order of things, eternal and divine, to which the mundane order
but dimly corresponds, and only within this higher order, eternal
and invisible, is access to God possible for man. On such a
view as this, which ultimately (see pp. xxxi-xxxii) goes back to
Platonic idealism, and which had been worked out by Philo, the
real world is the transcendent order of things, which is the
pattern for the phenomenal universe, so that to attain God man
must pass from the lower and outward world of the senses to the
inner. But how? Philo employed the Logos or Reason as
the medium. Our author similarly holds that men must attain
this higher world, but for him it is a a-K-qv-q, a sanctuary, the real
Presence of God, and it is entered not through ecstasy or mystic
rapture, but through connexion with Jesus Christ, who has not
only revealed that world but opened the way into it. The
Presence of God is now attainable as it could not be under the
outward cultus of the a-Krjvrj in the OT, for the complete sacrifice
has been offered " in the realm of the spirit," thus providing for
the direct access of the people to their God. The full bliss of the
fellowship is still in the future, indeed ; it is not to be realized
finally until Jesus returns for his people, for he is as yet only their
7rpdS/3o/i,os (6 20 ). The primitive eschatology required and received
this admission from the writer, though it is hardly consonant
with his deeper thought. And this is why he quotes for example
the old words about Jesus waiting in heaven till his foes are
crushed (io 12 - 13 ). He is still near enough to the primitive period to
share the forward look (see, e.g., 2 2f - q 28 io 37 ), and unlike Philo, he
does not allow his religious idealism to evaporate his eschatology.
But while this note of expectation is sounded now and then, it
is held that Christians already experience the powers of the
world to come. The new and final order has dawned ever since
the sacrifice of Jesus was made, and the position of believers is
guaranteed. " You have come to mount Sion, the city of the
living God." The entrance of Jesus has made a fresh, living
way for us, which is here and now open. " For all time he is
able to save those who approach God through him, as he is
always living to intercede on their behalf." Christians enjoy the
final status of relationship to God in the world of spirit and
reality, in virtue of the final sacrifice offered by Jesus the Son.
(ii.)
What was this sacrifice ? How did the writer understand it ?
(a) The first thing to be said is that in his interpretation of the
sacrifice of Jesus, he takes the piacular view. Calvin (Instit. ii.
15. 6) maintains that, as for the priesthood of Christ, " finem et
usum eius esse ut sit mediator purus omni macula, qui sanctitate
INTRODUCTION xxxv
sua Deum nobis conciliet. Sed quia aditum occupat justa
maledictio, et Deus pro judicis officio nobis infensus est, ut nobis
favorem comparet sacerdos ad placandam iram ipsius Dei, piacu-
lum intervenire necesse est. . . . Qua de re prclixe apostolus
disputat in epistola ad Hebraeos a septimo capite fere ad finem
usque decimi." Matthew Arnold is not often found beside
Calvin, but he shares this error. " Turn it which way we will,
the notion of appeasement of an offended God by vicarious
sacrifice, which the Epistle to the Hebrews apparently sanctions,
will never truly speak to the religious sense, or bear fruit for
true religion " (St. Paul and Protestantism, p. 72). Arnold saves
himself by the word " apparently," but the truth is that this
idea is not sanctioned by Ilpos 'Efipaiovs at all. The interpreta-
tion of Calvin confuses Paul's doctrine of expiation with the
piacular view of our author. The entire group of ideas about
the law, the curse, and the wrath of God is alien to IIpos
'E/3pcuovs. The conception of God is indeed charged with
wholesome awe (cp. on i2 28 - 29 ); but although God is never
called directly the Father of Christians, his attitude to men is
one of grace, and the entire process of man's approach is
initiated by him (2 9 13 20 ). God's wrath is reserved for the
apostates (io 29 " 31 ); it does not brood over unregenerate men, to
be removed by Christ. Such a notion could hardly have occurred
to a man with predilections for the typical significance of the OT
ritual, in which the sacrifices were not intended to avert the
wrath of God so much as to reassure the people from time to
time that their relations with their God had not been interrupted.
The function of Christ, according to our author, is not to appease
the divine wrath (see on 2 9f - 17 ), but to establish once and lor all
the direct fellowship of God with his people, and a picturesque
archaic phrase like that in 1 2 24 about the alfia pavTurp.ov cannot
be pressed into the doctrine that Jesus by his sacrifice averted or
averts the just anger of God. On the other hand, while the
author knows the primitive Christian idea of God's fatherhood,
it is not in such terms that he expresses his own conception of
God. Philo (De Exsecrationibus, 9) describes how the Jews in
the diaspora will be encouraged to return to Israel and Israel's
God, particularly by his forgiving character (kv\ p.h> ei7r€iK£i'a koX
XprjaTOTrjTi tov Trapa.Ka\ovp.evov avyyvu) fxrjv irpo Tip.<Dpia<; d«i TiOtv-
tos) ; the end of their approach to God, he adds, oiSlv hepnv 7}
tiapeoTelv t<3 6ew KaOairep viovs irarpi. But the author of IIpos
'Eftpaiovs lays no stress upon the Fatherhood of God for men ;
except in connexion with the discipline of suffering, he never
alludes to the goodness of God as paternal, even for Christians,
and indeed it is only in OT quotations that God is called even
the Father of the Son (i 5 5 s ). He avoids, even more strictly
xxxvi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
than Jesus, the use of love-language. The verb dya7rav only
occurs twice, both times in an OT citation ; dyaTrrj is also used
only twice, and never of man's attitude towards God. There is
significance in such linguistic data ; they corroborate the
impression that the author takes a deep view (see on 12 23 ) of the
homage and awe due to God. Godly reverence, eu\a/?eia (see
on 5 7 ), characterized Jesus in his human life, and it is to charac-
terize Christians towards God, i.e. an awe which is devoid of
anything like nervous fear, an ennobling sense of the greatness
of God, but still a reverential awe. This is not incompatible
with humble confidence or with a serious joy, with Trapprjcria
(cp. on 3 16 ). Indeed "all deep joy has something of the awful
in it," as Carlyle says. "E^w/icv \a-piv is the word of our author
(12 28 ); the standing attitude of Christians towards their God is
one of profound thankfulness for his goodness to them. Only,
it is to be accompanied fiera cuAa/Jcias kcu Se'ous. We are to feel
absolutely secure under God's will, whatever crises or catastrophes
befall the universe, and the security is at once to thrjll (see on
2 12 ) and to subdue our minds. Hence, while God's graciousness
overcomes any anxiety in man, his sublimity is intended to
elevate and purify human life by purging it of easy emotion and
thin sentimentalism. This is not the primitive awe of religion
before the terrors of the unknown supernatural ; the author
believes in the gracious, kindly nature of God (see on 2 10 , also
6 10 13 16 etc.), but he has an instinctive horror of anything like a
shallow levity. The tone of Hpos 'E/3paiou? resembles, indeed,
that of I P I 17 («i iraripa €7rtKaA.eur0€ tov a.Trpo<rwTro\TqirT(i>s Kpivovra
Kara to (ko.(ttov Ipyov, iv </»d/3a) tov tt}s 7rapot/cias ifiwv xpovov
avaa-Tpa(pr]T(.) ; there may be irreverence in religion, not only in
formal religion but for other reasons in spiritual religion. Yet
the special aspect of our epistle is reflected in what Jesus once
said to men tempted to hesitate and draw back in fear of
suffering : " I will show you whom to fear — fear Him who after
He has killed has power to cast you into Gehenna. Yes, I tell
you, fear Him" (Lk 12 5 ). This illustrates the spirit and
situation of IIpos 'Efipaiow;, where the writer warns his friends
against apostasy by reminding them of 6 #«os £wv and of the
judgment. We might almost infer that in his mind the dominant
conception is God regarded as transcendental, not with regard
to creation but with regard to frail, faulty human nature. What
engrosses the writer is the need not so much of a medium
between God and the material universe, as of a medium between
his holiness and human sin (see on 12 23 ).
(i>) As for the essence and idea of the sacrifice, while he
refers to a number of OT sacrifices by way of illustration, his
main analogy comes from the ritual of atonement-day in the
INTRODUCTION xxxvii
levitical code (Lv 16), where it was prescribed that once a year
the highpriest was to enter the inner shrine by himself, the shrine
within which stood the sacred box or ark symbolizing the divine
Presence. The elaborate sacrifices of the day are only glanced
at by our author. Thus he never alludes to the famous scape-
goat, which bore away the sins of the people into the desert.
All he mentions is the sacrifice of certain animals, as propitiation
for the highpriest's own sins and also for those of the nation.
Carrying some blood of these animals, the priest was to smear
the Ikacrrrjpiov or cover of the ark. This had a twofold object,
(i) Blood was used to reconsecrate the sanctuary (Lv 16 16 ).
This was a relic of the archaic idea that the life-bond between
the god and his worshippers required to be renewed by sacred
blood ; " the holiness of the altar is liable to be impaired, and
requires to be refreshed by an application of holy blood." l
Our author refers to this crude practice in q 23 . But his
dominant interest is in (ii) the action of the highpriest as he
enters the inner shrine ; it is not the reconsecration of the
sanctuary with its altar, but the general atonement there made
for the sins of the People, which engrosses him. The application
of the victim's blood to the IXaaT-rjpiov by the divinely appointed
highpriest was believed to propitiate Yahweh by cleansing the
People from the sins which might prevent him from dwelling
any longer in the land or among the People. The annual
ceremony was designed to ensure his Presence among them, " to
enable the close relationship between Deity and man to continue
undisturbed. The logical circle — that the atoning ceremonies
were ordered by God to produce their effect upon himself — was
necessarily unperceived by the priestly mind " (Montefiore,
Hibbert Lectures, p. 337). What the rite, as laid down in the
bible, was intended to accomplish was simply, for the author of
IIpos 'Eftpaiovs, to renew the life-bond between God and the
People. This sacrifice offered by the highpriest on atonement-
day was the supreme, piacular action of the levitical cultus.
Once a year it availed to wipe out the guilt of all sins, whatever
their nature, ritual or moral, which interrupted the relationship
between God and his People. 2 For it was a sacrifice designed
for the entire People as the community of God. The blood of
the victims was carried into the inner shrine, on behalf of the
People outside the sanctuary ; this the highpriest did for them,
as he passed inside the curtain which shrouded the inner shrine.
Also, in contrast to the usual custom, the flesh of the victims,
instead of any part being eaten as a meal, was carried out and
burned up. In all this the writer finds a richly symbolic
1 W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites (1907), pp. 408 f.
2 Cp. Montefiore, op, at. , pp. 334 f.
xxxviii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
meaning (9 lf- ). Jesus was both highpriest and victim, as he
died and passed inside the heavenly Presence of God to
establish the life-bond between God and his People. Jesus did
not need to sacrifice for himself. Jesus did not need to sacrifice
himself more than once for the People. Jesus secured a
forgiveness which the older animal sacrifices never won. And
Jesus did not l^ave his People outside ; he opened the way for
them to enter God's own presence after him, and in virtue of his
self-sacrifice. So the author, from time to time, works out the
details of the symbolism. He even uses the treatment of the
victim's remains to prove that Christians must be unworldly
(i3 llf -) ; but this is an after-thought, for his fundamental interest
lies in the sacrificial suggestiveness of the atonement-day which,
external and imperfect as its ritual was, adumbrated the reality
which had been manifested in the sacrifice and ascension of
Jesus.
Yet this figurative category had its obvious drawbacks, two
of which may be noted here. One (a) is, that it does not allow
him to show how the sacrificial death of Jesus is connected with
the inner renewal of the heart and the consequent access of
man to God. He uses phrases like dyia£civ (see on 2 11 ) and
KaOapiluv and tzXuovv (this term emphasizing more than the
others the idea of completeness), but we can only deduce from
occasional hints like 9 14 what he meant by the efficacy of the
sacrificial death. His ritualistic category assumed that such a
sacrifice availed to reinstate the People before God (cp. on 9 22 ),
and this axiom sufficed for his Christian conviction that every-
thing depended upon what Jesus is to God and to us — what he
is, he is in virtue of what he did, of the sacrificial offering of
himself. But the symbol or parable in the levitical cultus went
no further. And it even tended to confuse the conception of
what is symbolized, by its inadequacy ; it necessarily separated
priest and victim, and it suggested by its series of actions a time-
element which is out of keeping with the eternal order. Hence
the literal tendency in the interpretation of the sacrifice has led
to confusion, as attempts have been made to express the con-
tinuous, timeless efficacy of the sacrifice. That the death was
a sacrifice, complete and final, is assumed (e.g. 7 27 9 14 io 10 - 12 - 14 ).
Yet language is used which has suggested that in the heavenly
(TK-qvr] this sacrifice is continually presented or offered (e.g. 7 26
and the vg. mistranslation of io 12 "hie autem unam pro peccatis
offerens hostiam in sempiternum sedit"). The other drawback
(b) is, that the idea of Jesus passing like the highpriest at once
from the sacrifice into the inner sanctuary (i.e. through the
heavens into the Presence, 4 14 ) has prevented him from making
use of the Resurrection (cp. also on 13 12 ). The heavenly sphere
INTRODUCTION xxxix
of Jesus is so closely linked with his previous existence on earth,
under the category of the sacrifice, that the author could not
suggest an experience like the resurrection, which would not
have tallied with this idea of continuity.
On the other hand, the concentration of interest in the
symbol on the sole personality of the priest and of the single
sacrifice enabled him to voice what was his predominant belief
about Jesus. How profoundly he was engrossed by the idea of
Christ's adequacy as mediator may be judged from his avoidance
of some current religious beliefs about intercession. Over and
again he comes to a point where contemporary opinions (with
which he was quite familiar) suggested, e.g., the intercession of
angels in heaven, or of departed saints on behalf of men on
earth, ideas like the merits of the fathers or the atoning efficacy
of martyrdom in the past, to facilitate the approach of sinful
men to God (cp. on n 40 i2 17 - 23 - 24 etc.). These he deliberately
ignores. In view of the single, sufficient sacrifice of Jesus, in
the light of his eternally valid intercession, no supplementary
aid was required. It is not accidental that such beliefs are left
out of our author's scheme of thought. It is a fresh proof of
his genuinely primitive faith in Jesus as the one mediator. The
ideas of the perfect Priest and the perfect Sacrifice are a theo-
logical expression, in symbolic language, of what was vital to the
classical piety of the early church ; and apart from Paul no
one set this out so cogently and clearly as the writer of IIpos
'E/3pcuovs.
(iii.)
Our modern symbolism does no sort of justice to the ancient
idea of priesthood. Matthew Arnold says of Wordsworth :
"He was a priest to us all,
Of the wonder and bloom of the world,
Which we saw with his eyes, and were glad."
That is, "priest" means interpreter, one who introduces us to a
deeper vision, one who, as we might put it, opens up to us a
new world of ideas. Such is not the ultimate function of Christ
as Upcu's in our epistle. Dogmatic theology would prefer to
call this the prophetic function of Christ, but the priestly office
means mediation, not interpretation. The function of the high-
priest is to enter and to offer : claepxecrdai and irpoacfrepeLv forming
the complete action, and no distinction being drawn between the
two, any more than between the terms " priest " and " high-
priest."
The fundamental importance of this may be illustrated from
the recourse made by Paul and by our author respectively to the
xl THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Jeremianic oracle of the new covenant or BiaO^K-q. Paul's main
interest in it lies in its prediction of the Spirit, as opposed to
the Law. What appeals to Paul is the inward and direct intui-
tion of God, which forms the burden of the oracle. But to our
author (8 7-13 io 15 " 18 ) it is the last sentence of the oracle which
is supreme, i.e. the remission of sins ; " I will be merciful to their
iniquities, and remember their sins no more." He seizes the
name and fact of a " new " covenant, as implying that the old
was inadequate. But he continues : " If the blood of goats and
bulls, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on defiled persons,
give them a holiness that bears on bodily purity, how much more
will the blood of Christ, who in the spirit of the eternal offered
himself as an unblemished sacrifice to God, cleanse your con-
science from dead works to serve a living God ? He mediates a
new covenant for this reason, that those who have been called
may obtain the eternal deliverance they have been promised,
now that a death has occurred which redeems them from the
transgressions involved in the first covenant " (9 13 ' 15 ). That is,
the conclusion of Jeremiah's oracle — that God will forgive and
forget — is the real reason why our author quotes it. There can
be no access without an amnesty for the past ; the religious
communion of the immediate future must be guaranteed by a
sacrifice ratifying the pardon of God.
This difference between Paul and our author is, of course,
owing to the fact that for the latter the covenant x or law is sub-
ordinated to the priesthood. Change the priesthood, says the
writer, and ipso facto the law has to be changed too. The cove-
nant is a relationship of God and men, arising out of grace, and
inaugurated by some historic act ; since its efficiency as an insti-
tution for forgiveness and fellowship depends on the personality
and standing of the priesthood, the appearance of Jesus as the
absolute Priest does away with the inferior law.
This brings us to the heart of the Christology, the sacrifice
and priestly service of Christ as the mediator of this new cove-
nant with its eternal fellowship.
Men are sons of God, and their relation of confidence and
access is based upon the function of the Son kot* i£6xqv- The
author shares with Paul the view that the Son is the Son before
and during his incarnate life, and yet perhaps Son in a special
sense in consequence of the resurrection — or rather, as our
author would have preferred to say, in consequence of the ascen-
sion. This may be the idea underneath the compressed clauses
at the opening of the epistle (i 1 ' 5 ). "God has spoken to us by
1 As Professor Kennedy points out, with real insight : "all the terms of
the contrast which he works out are selected because of their relation to the
covenant-conception" (p. 201).
INTRODUCTION xli
a Son — a Son whom he appointed heir of the universe, as it
was by him that he had created the world. He, reflecting God's
bright glory and stamped with God's own character, sustains the
universe by his word of power ; when he had secured our
purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the
Majesty on high ; and thus he is superior to the angels, as he
has inherited a Name superior to theirs. For to what angel did
God ever say —
*Thou art my Son,
To-day have I become thy Father'?"
(referring to the ancient notion that the king first became con-
scious of his latent divine sonship at his accession to the throne).
The name or dignity which Christ inherits, as the result of his
redemptive work, is probably that of Son; as the following
quotation from the OT psalm suggests, the resurrection or
exaltation may mark, as it does for Paul, the fully operative
sonship of Christ, the only way to inherit or possess the
universe being to endure the suffering and death which purified
human sin and led to the enthronement of Christ. Our author
holds that this divine being was sent into the world because he
was God's Son, and that he freely undertook his mission for
God's other sons on earth.
The mission was a will of God which involved sacrifice.
That is the point of the quotation (io 5f -) from the 40th psalm
— not to prove that obedience to God was better than sacrifice,
but to bring out the truth that God's will required a higher kind
of sacrifice than the levitical, namely, the personal, free self-
sacrifice of Christ in the body. Even this is more than self-
sacrifice in our modern sense of the term. It is " by this will,"
the writer argues, that "we are consecrated, because Jesus Christ
once for all has offered up his body." No doubt the offering is
eternal, it is not confined to the historical act on Calvary. " He
has entered heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God
on our behalf" (9 24 ) : "he is always living to make intercession
for us " (7 25 ). Still, the author is more realistic in expression than
the tradition of the Testament of Levi (3), which makes the
angel of the Presence in the third heaven offer a spiritual and
bloodless sacrifice to God in propitiation for the sins of ignorance
committed by the righteous. Our author assigns entirely to Christ
the intercessory functions which the piety of the later Judaism
had already begun to divide among angels and departed saints,
but he also makes the sacrifice of Jesus one of blood — a realism
which was essential to his scheme of argument from the
entrance of the OT high priest into the inner shrine.
The superior or rather the absolute efficacy of the blood of
xlii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Christ depends in turn on his absolute significance as the
Son of God ; it is his person and work which render his self-
sacrifice valid and supreme. But this is asserted rather than
explained. Indeed, it is asserted on the ground of a presupposi-
tion which was assumed as axiomatic, namely, the impossibility
of communion with God apart from blood shed in sacrifice
(9 22 ). For example, when the writer encourages his readers by
reminding them of their position (12 24 ), that they "have come
to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant and to the sprinkled
blood whose message is nobler than Abel's," he does not mean
to draw an antithesis between Abel's blood as a cry for vengeance
and Christ's blood as a cry for intercession. The fundamental
antithesis lies between exclusion and inclusion. Abel's blood
demanded the excommunication of the sinner, as an outcast
from God's presence ; Christ's blood draws the sinner near and
ratifies the covenant. The author denies to the OT cultus of
sacrifice any such atoning value, but at the same time he reaffirms
its basal principle, that blood in sacrifice is essential to communion
with the deity. Blood offered in sacrifice does possess a religious
efficacy, to expiate and purify. Without shedding of blood there
is no remission. We ask, why ? But the ancient world never
dreamt of asking, why ? What puzzles a modern was an axiom
to the ancient. The argument of our epistle is pivoted on this
postulate, and no attempt is made to rationalize it.
In the Law of Holiness, incorporated in Leviticus, there is
indeed one incidental allusion to the rationale of sacrifice or
blood-expiation, when, in prohibiting the use of blood as a food,
the taboo proceeds: "the life of the body is in the blood, and
I have given it to you for the altar to make propitiation for
yourselves, for the blood makes propitiation by means of the
life " {i.e. the life inherent in it). This is reflection on the
meaning of sacrifice, but it does not carry us very far, for it only
explains the piacular efficacy of blood by its mysterious potency
of life. Semitic scholars warn us against finding in these words
(Lv 17 11 ) either the popular idea of the substitution of the victim
for the sinner, or even the theory that the essential thing in
sacrifice is the offering of a life to God. As far as the Hebrew
text goes, this may be correct. But the former idea soon became
attached to the verse, as we see from the LXX — to yap aipa
airov avrl tt}? i/^X'? 5 IftXAmtM. This view does not seem to be
common in later Jewish thought, though it was corroborated by
the expiatory value attached to the death of the martyrs (e.g.
4 Mac *7 22 ). It is in this later world, however, rather than in
the primitive world of Leviticus, that the atmosphere of the idea
of IIpos 'E/?pai'ou9 is to be sought, the idea that because Jesus
was what he was, his death has such an atoning significance as
INTRODUCTION xliii
to inaugurate a new and final relation between God and men,
the idea that his blood purifies the conscience because it is his
blood, the blood of the sinless Christ, who is both the priest
and the sacrifice. When the author writes that Christ " in the
spirit of the eternal " (9 14 ) offered himself as an unblemished
sacrifice to God, he has in mind the contrast between the annual
sacrifice on the day of atonement and the sacrifice of Christ
which never needed to be repeated, because it had been offered
in the spirit and — as we might say — in the eternal order of
things. It was a sacrifice bound up with his death in history,
but it belonged essentially to the higher order of absolute reality.
The writer breathed the Philonic atmosphere in which the
eternal Now over-shadowed the things of space and time (see
on i 6 ), but he knew this sacrifice had taken place on the cross,
and his problem was one which never confronted Philo, the
problem which we moderns have to face in the question : How
can a single historical fact possess a timeless significance ? How
can Christianity claim to be final, on the basis of a specific
revelation in history ? Our author answered this problem in his
own way for his own day.
(iv.)
For him religion is specially fellowship with God on the
basis of forgiveness. He never uses the ordinary term Koivwvia,
however, in this sense. It is access to God on the part of
worshippers that is central to his mind ; that is, he conceives
religion as worship, as the approach of the human soul to the
divine Presence, and Christianity is the religion which is religion
since it mediates this access and thereby secures the immediate
consciousness of God for man. Or, as he would prefer to say,
the revelation of God in Jesus has won this right for man as it
could not be won before. For, from the first, there has been a
People of God seeking, and to a certain extent enjoying, this
access. God has ever been revealing himself to them, so far as
was possible. But now in Jesus the final revelation has come
which supersedes all that went before in Israel. The writer
never contemplates any other line of revelation ; outside Israel
of old he never looks. It is enough for him that the worship of
the OT implied a revelation which was meant to elicit faith,
especially through the sacrificial cultus, and that the imperfec-
tions of that revelation have now been disclosed and superseded
by the revelation in Jesus the Son. Faith in this revelation is in
one aspect belief (4 2f- ). Indeed he describes faith simply as the
conviction of the unseen world, the assurance that God has
spoken and that he will make his word good, if men rely upon
xliv THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
it ; he who draws near to God must believe that he exists and
that he does reward those who seek him (n 6 ). Faith of this
noble kind, in spite of appearances to the contrary, has always
characterized the People. Our author rejoices to trace it at
work long before Jesus came, and he insists that it is the saving
power still, a faith which in some aspects is indistinguishable
from hope, since it inspires the soul to act and suffer in the
conviction that God is real and sure to reward loyalty in the
next world, if not in the present. Such faith characterized Jesus
himself (2 13 12 2 ). It is belief in God as trustworthy, amid all
the shows and changes of life, an inward conviction that, when
he has spoken, the one thing for a man to do is to hold to
that word and to obey it at all costs. This is the conception
of faith in the early and the later sections of the writing (3 7f -
io 38 -i2 2 ). The difference that Jesus has made — for the writer
seems to realize that there is a difference between the primitive
faith and the faith of those who are living after the revelation in
Jesus — is this, that the assurance of faith has now become far
more real than it was. Though even now believers have to
await the full measure of their reward, though faith still is hope
to some extent, yet the full realization of the fellowship with
God which is the supreme object of faith has been now made
through Jesus. In two ways, (i) For faith Jesus is the inspiring
example ; he is the great Believer who has shown in his own
life on earth the possibilities of faith. 1 In order to understand
what faith is, we must look to Jesus above all, to see how faith
begins and continues and ends. But (ii) Jesus has not only
preceded us on the line of faith ; he has by his sacrifice made
our access to God direct and real, as it never could be before.
Hence the writer can say, " let us draw near with a full assurance
of faith and a true heart, in absolute assurance of faith " since
"we have a great Priest over the house of God." "We have
confidence to enter the holy Presence in virtue of the blood of
Jesus." He does not make Jesus the object of faith as Paul
does, but he argues that only the sacrifice of Jesus opens the
way into the presence of God for sinful men.
This is the argument of the central part of the writing
(chs. 7-10). Religion is worship, and worship implies sacrifice;
there is no access for man to God without sacrifice, and no
1 "It was by no divine magic, no mere 'breath, turn of eye, wave of
hand,' that he 'joined issue with death,' but by the power of that genuinely
human faith which had inspired others in the past" (MacNeill, p. 26).
Bousset's denial of this (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1915, p. 431 f. : "man
wird bei dem Jesus d. Hebraerbriefe so wenig wie bei dem paulinischen noch
im strengen Sinne von einem subjectivem Glauben Jesu reden konnen") is as
incomprehehsible as his desperate effort to explain He 5 7 " 10 from the fixed
ideas of the mystery-religions.
INTRODUCTION xlv
religion without a priest (see on 7 11 ). The relations between
God and his People from the first l have been on the basis of
sacrifice, as the bible shows, and the new revelation in Jesus
simply changes the old sacrificial order with its priesthood for
another. The writer starts from a profound sense of sin, as an
interruption of fellowship between God and man. He thoroughly
sympathizes with the instinct which underlay the ancient practice
of sacrifice, that fellowship with God is not a matter of course,
that God is accessible and yet difficult of access, and that human
nature cannot find its way unaided into his presence. Thus he
quotes the 40th psalm (see p. xli), not to prove that God's will
is fellowship, and that to do the will of God is enough for man,
apart from any sacrifice, but to illustrate the truth that the will
of God does require a sacrifice, not simply the ethical obedience
of man, but the self-sacrifice with which Jesus offered himself
freely, the perfect victim and the perfect priest. All men now
have to do is to avail themselves of his sacrifice in order to
enjoy access to God in the fullest sense of the term. " Having
a great Highpriest who has passed through the heavens, let us
draw near."
The conception of religion as devotion or worship covers a
wide range in IIp6s 'E/?paious. It helps to explain, for example
(see above, p. xxxviii), why the writer represents Jesus after death
not as being raised from the dead, but as passing through the
heavens into the inner Presence or sanctuary of God with the
sacrifice of his blood (4 14 9 llf, )« It accounts for the elaboration
of a detail like that of 9 s3 , and, what is much more important, it
explains the "sacrificial" delineation of the Christian life. In
this aXrjdtvr) aKrjv^ (8 2 ), of God's own making, with its dvo-taa-
rripiov (13 10 ), Christians worship God (A-ai-pcveiv, 9 14 I2 28 "i3 10 );
their devotion to him is expressed by the faith and loyalty which
detach them from this world (i3 13 - 14 )and enable them to live
and move under the inspiration of the upper world ; indeed their
ethical life of thanksgiving (see on 2 12 ) and beneficence is a
sacrifice by which they honour and worship God (i3 15 - 16 ), a
sacrifice presented to God by their dpxiepev's Jesus. The writer
never suggests that the worship-regulations of the outworn cultus
are to be reproduced in any rites of the church on earth ; he
never dreamed of this, any more than of the ^yov/xcvoi being
called " priests." The essence of priesthood, viz. the mediation
of approach to God, had been absolutely fulfilled in Jesus, and
in one sense all believers were enabled to follow him into the
inner aKrjvrj, where they worshipped their God as the priests of
old had done in their o-Kyvrj, and as the People of old had never
1 i.e. from the inauguration of the 5ia0?j/o7 at Sinai, though he notes that
even earlier there was sacrifice offered (n 3 ).
xlvi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
been able to do except through the highpriest as their represen-
tative and proxy. But, while the worship-idea is drawn out
to describe Christians, in Upbs 'Efipaiovs its primary element
is that of the eternal function of Christ as dpx«p«-us in the
heavenly a-K-qv-fj.
(v.)
Symbolism alters as the ages pass. The picture-language in
which one age expresses its mental or religious conceptions
often ceases to be intelligible or attractive to later generations,
because the civic, ritual, or economic conditions of life which had
originally suggested it have disappeared or changed their form.
This well-known principle applies especially to the language of
religion, and it is one reason why some of the arguments in IIpos
'Efipaiovs are so difficult for the modern mind to follow. There
are other reasons, no doubt. The exegetical methods which the
author took over from the Alexandrian school are not ours.
Besides, historical criticism has rendered it hard for us moderns
to appreciate the naive use of the OT which prevails in some
sections of ILoos 'E/3/Wovs. But, above all, the sacrificial analogies
are a stumbling-block, for we have nothing to correspond to what
an ancient understood by a "priest" and sacrifice. Dryden was
not poetic when he translated Vergil's " sacerdos " in the third
Georgic (489) by " holy butcher," but the phrase had its truth.
The business of a priest was often that of a butcher ; blood
flowed, blood was splashed about. It was in terms of such
beliefs and practices that the author of ILoos 'E/3pai'ous argued,
rising above them to the spiritual conception of the self-sacrifice
of Jesus, but nevertheless starting from them as axiomatic. The
duty of the modern mind is to understand, in the first place,
how he came by these notions ; and, in the second place, what
he intended to convey by the use of such symbolic terms as
" blood," " highpriest," and "sacrifice."
The striking idea of Christ as the eternal dp^tepcv?, by whom
the access of man to God is finally and fully assured, may have
been a flash of inspiration, one of the notes of originality and
insight which mark the writer's treatment and restatement of the
faith. But originality is not depreciated by the effort to trace
anticipations. What led him to this view? After all, the most
brilliant flashes depend upon an atmosphere already prepared
for them. They are struck out of something. In this case, it is
not enough to say that the conception was merely the transfer-
ence to Jesus of the Philonic predicates of the Logos, or the
result of a bible-reading in the pentateuch. In the pentateuch
the writer found proofs of what he brought to it, and the argu-
ments in chs. 7-10 really buttress ideas built on other foundations.
INTRODUCTION xlvii
(a) Once the conception of a heavenly sanctuary became
current, the notion of a heavenly dp^tepcvs would not be far-fetched
for a writer like this. Philo had, indeed, not only spoken of the
Logos as a highpriest, in a metaphorical sense, i.e. as mediating
metaphysically and psychologically the relations between the
worlds of thought and sense, but in an allegorical fashion spoken
of " two temples belonging to God, one being the world in which
the highpriest is his own Son, the Logos, the other being the
rational soul " (de Somniis, i. 37). Our writer is much less
abstract. Like the author of the Apocalypse (see on 4 16 ), he
thinks of heaven in royal and ritual imagery as well as in civic,
but it is the ritual symbolism which is more prominent. During
the second century B.C. the ideas of a heavenly sanctuary and
a heavenly altar became current in apocalyptic piety, partly owing
to the idealistic and yet realistic conception (see on 8 5 ) that in
heaven the true originals were preserved, the material altar and
sanctuary being, like the earthly Jerusalem, inferior representations
of transcendent realities. From this it was a natural develop-
ment to work out the idea of a heavenly highpriest. By
"natural" I do not mean to undervalue the poetical and re-
ligious originality of the writer of IIpos 'E/8pcuovs. The author
of the Apocalypse of John, for example, fails to reach this idea,
and even in the enigmatic passage in the vision and confession of
Levi (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Levi 5), where
the seer tells us, " I saw the holy temple, and upon a throne of
glory the Most High. And he said to me, Levi, I have given
thee the blessings of priesthood until I come and sojourn in the
midst of Israel" — even here, though the levitical priesthood, as
in our epistle, is only a temporary substitute for the presence of
God, the heavenly sanctuary has no highpriest. Nevertheless
it was the idea of the heavenly sanctuary which held one
germ of the idea of the heavenly highpriest for the author of
IIpos 'E/3/Wovs, as he desired to express the fundamental signifi-
cance of Jesus for his faith.
(b) Another factor was the speculations of Philo about the
Logos as highpriest (de Migrat. Abrah. 102, de Fug. 108 ff.),
though the priestly mediation there is mainly between man and
the upper world of ideas. The Logos or Reason is not only the
means of creating the material cosmos after the pattern of the
first and real world, but inherent in it, enabling human creatures
to apprehend the invisible. This is Philo's primary use of the
metaphor. It is philosophical rather than religious. Yet the
increased prestige of the highpriest in the later Judaism prompted
him to apply to the Logos functions which resemble intercession
as well as interpretation. Vague as they are, they were familiar
to the author of our epistle, and it is probable that they helped
xlviii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
to fashion his expression of the eternal significance of Jesus as
the mediator between man and God. The Logos as highpriest,
says Philo (de Somn. ii. 28), for example, is not only apwuos,
6A.d*c\?7po9, but /A€#opids tis 6(ov < *cai avdpuyirov > <£u<ris, tov ucv
iXdrroiv, dvdpwirov 8e KpctTTtuv. Then he quotes the LXX of Lv
16 17 . The original says that no man is to be with the highpriest
when he enters the inner shrine, but the Greek version runs, orav
elcrtrj ets to, dyia tu>v dytwv 6 op^icpcus, av6pu>Tro<; ovk carat, and Philo
dwells on the literal, wrong sense of the last three words, as if
they meant "the highpriest is not to be a man." "What will
he be, if he is not a man ? God ? I would not say that (ovk
av eiu-oi/u). . . . Nor yet is he man, but he touches both extremes
(tKaTcpwv twv a.Kpo)v, <Ls av /Jacrccos xai K€<pa\fj<;, e<pa7n-duevos)."
Later {ibid. 34) he remarks, "if at that time he is not a man, it
is clear he is not God either, but a minister (Aen-oupyos 6eov) of
God, belonging to creation in his mortal nature and to the
uncreated world in his immortal nature." Similarly he pleads,
in the de sacerdot. 12, that the function of the highpriest was to
mediate between God and man, iva Sta pio-ov nvds avdpw-n-oi uev
Wa.<TK(DVTai deov, 0t6s 0€ Tas ^apiTas avOpwirois iiroSiaKova) rtvl
^pwuevos opiyr) kcu \oprjyo. Here we may feel vibrating a need of
intercession, even although the idea is still somewhat theosophic.
(c) A third basis for the conception of Christ's priesthood lay
in the combination of messianic and sacerdotal functions which
is reflected in the 110th psalm (see above, p. xxxiii), which in the
Testaments of the Patriarchs (Reuben 6 8 ) is actually applied to
Hyrcanus the Maccabean priest-king, while in the Test. Levi (18)
functions which are messianic in all but name are ascribed to a
new priest, with more spiritual insight than in the psalm itself.
The curious thing, however, is that this Priest discharges no
sacerdotal functions. The hymn describes his divine attestation
and consecration — "and in his priesthood shall sin come to an
end, and he shall open the gates of paradise and shall remove
the threatening sword against Adam." That is all. Probably
the passing phase of expectation, that a messiah would arise from
the sacerdotal Maccabees, accounts for such a fusion of messiah
and priest. In any case its influence was not wide. Still, the
anticipation is not unimportant for the thought of Hpos 'E/?pou'ov9,
which rests so much upon the mystical significance of that psalm.
Paul had seen the fulfilment of Ps no 1 in the final triumph
of Christ as messiah over his foes (1 Co 15 s4 - 25 8el yap avrbv
/3acriXevtiv aYjsis ov 6rj 77-avTas tovs i\0pov<i i-rro tous 7ro'8as avroS).
But meantime Christ was in living touch with his church on earth,
and Paul can even speak, in a glowing outburst, of his effective
intercession (Ro 8 84 os kcu ivrvyxdvet v-n-ep r)p.u>v). This is at
least the idea of the highpriesthood of Christ, in almost every-
INTRODUCTION xlix
thing except name, though Paul says as much of the Spirit (Ro
8 2T Kara 6e6v cVrvy^dvet wep dyiW). Later, in the Fourth Gospel,
a similar thought reappears ; Christ is represented in priestly
metaphor as interceding for his People (i7 lf ), and the phrases
( 1 7 17 - 19 ) about Jesus consecrating himself (as priest and victim)
that thereby his disciples may be " consecrated " lv rrj aX-rjdda {i.e.
in the sphere of Reality), indicate a use of ayid&iv which ex-
presses one of the central ideas of II/>os 'Ef3patov<;. But in the
latter writing the idea is explicit and elaborate, as it is nowhere
else in the NT, and explicit on the basis of a later line in the
noth psalm, which Paul ignored. Our author also knew and
used the earlier couplet (io 13 ), but he draws his cardinal argu-
ment from V. 4 (tv et lepcvs eis alwva Kara t?)i/ rd$iv McA^cre'Sex.
(vi.)
There is a partial anticipation of all this in the Enochic
conception of the Son of Man. No doubt, as Volz warns us
{Judische Eschatologie, p. 90), we must not read too much into
such apocalyptic phrases, since the Son of Man is an x quantity
of personal value in the age of expected bliss and salvation.
Still, the pre-existent messiah there is Son of Man as transcen-
dent and in some sense as human ; he must be human, " Man,"
in order to help men, and he must be transcendent in order to
be a deliverer or redeemer. But the author of IIpos 'Efipaiow;,
like Paul, significantly avoids the term Son of Man, even in 2 5f -;
and although he has these two ideas of human sympathy and of
transcendency in close connexion, he derives them from his
meditation upon the real Jesus ultimately, not from any apoca-
lyptic speculations. What he meant by the term "Son of God"
is not quite plain. Philo had regarded the Logos as pre-
existent and as active in the history of the people, and so he
regards Christ ; but while it seems clear (see on 5 5 ) that Christ
is priest for him because he was already Son, the further ques-
tions, when did he become priest? and how is the Sonship
compatible with the earthly life? — these are problems which
remain unsolved. The interpretation of the function of Jesus
through the phrase in the 2nd psalm (see on i 5 ) hardly clears up
the matter any more than in the case of Justin Martyr {Dial. 88).
Later on, Hippolytus, or whoever wrote the homily appended
(chs. xi.-xii.) to the Epist. Diognet., faced the problem more
boldly and beautifully by arguing that " the Word was from
the very beginning, appeared new, was proved to be old, and
is ever young as he is born in the hearts of the saints. He
is the eternal One, who to-day was accounted Son " (6 crrjfitpov
vios \oyia6tis, 11 5 ). Here "to-day" refers to the Christian era;
d
1 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
evidently the problem left by the author of IIpos 'Ef3pa.Lov<;, with
his mystical, timeless use of the 2nd psalm, was now being felt
as a theological difficulty. But this is no clue to how he himself
took the reference. There is a large section in his thought upon
Christ as the eternal, transcendental Son which remains obscure
to us, and which perhaps was indefinite to himself. He took over
the idea of the divine Sonship from the primitive church, seized
upon it to interpret the sufferings and sacrificial function of Jesus
as well as his eternal value, and linked it to the notion of the
highpriesthood ; but he does not succeed in harmonizing its
implications about the incarnate life with his special yvwo-is of
the eternal Son within the higher sphere of divine realities.
At the same time there seems no hiatus 1 between the meta-
physical and the historical in the writer's conception of Jesus, no
unreconciled dualism between the speculative reconstruction and
the historical tradition. In ILoo? 'Efipaiow; we have the ordinary
primitive starting-point, how could a divine, reigning Christ ever
have become man ? The writer never hints that his readers
would question this, for they were not tempted by any Jewish
ideas. He uses the category of the Son quite frankly, in order
to express the absolute value of the revelation in Jesus ; it is his
sheer sense of the reality of the incarnate life which prompts him
to employ the transcendental ideas. He does not start from a
modern humanist view of Jesus, but from a conviction of his
eternal divine character and function as Son and as apxiepevs, and
his argument is that this position was only possible upon the
human experience, that Jesus became man because he was Son
(2 10f -), and is d/o^tepevs because once he was man.
(a) For our author Jesus is the Son, before ever he became
man, but there is no definite suggestion (see on 12 2 ) that he
made a sacrifice in order to become incarnate, no suggestion
that he showed his x^P 15 by entering our human lot (St' v/aSs
e7TT(i))(ev(Tev irXovcrtos di', eauTov iKtvaicrcv iv 6/xoiw/i.aTt av6pwTr<i>v
ycvo/x.€vos). Our author feels deeply the suffering of Jesus in the
days of his flesh, but it is the final sacrifice at the end of his life
which is emphasized. That he suffered as the eternal Son is
understood : also, that it was voluntary (io 5f -), also that it was
his human experience which qualified him to offer the perfect
sacrifice, by God's x^P L<; - But, apart from the (2 8f> ) allusion to
the temporary inferiority to angels, the writer does not touch the
moving idea of the kenotic theories of the incarnation, viz. the
"sense of sacrifice on the part of a pre-existent One." 2
(i>) Since he knew nothing of the sombre view of the crapi
1 As H. J. Holtzmann (Neulest. Theologie" 1 , ii. 337) and Pfleiderer (p. 287)
imagine.
2 H. R. Mackintosh, The Person of Christ, pp. 265 f.
INTRODUCTION li
which pervaded the Pauline psychology, he found no difficulty
in understanding how the sinless Jesus could share human flesh
and blood. The sinlessness is assumed, not argued (cp. on
4 16 5 7 ). Yet the writer does not simply transfer it as a dogmatic
predicate of messiahship to Jesus. One of the characteristics
which set IIpo? 'Efipaiovs apart in the early Christian literature is
the idea that Jesus did not possess sinlessness simply as a pre-
rogative of his divine Sonship or as a requisite for the validity
of his priestly function. It was not a mere endowment. The idea
rather is that he had to realize and maintain it bv a prolonged
moral conflict iv reus ?/p.e'pais T7/s crapKos airov. This view goes
back to direct historical tradition, with its deeply marked im-
pression of the personality of Jesus, and no sort of justice is done
to IIpos 'E/?pcuous if its conceptions of the human Son as sinless
are referred to a theoretical interest or dogmatic prepossession.
Such an interpretation is bound up with the view that IIpo9
'Efipaiov; represents the more or less arbitrary fusion of an his-
torical tradition about Jesus with a pre-Christian christology.
But it is not enough to speak vaguely of materials for such a
christology floating in pre-Christian Judaism and crystallizing
round the person of Jesus, once Jesus was identified with the
messiah. The crystallization was not fortuitous. What IIpos
'E/3paunM; contains is a christology which implies features and
characteristics in Jesus too definite to be explained away as
picturesque deductions from messianic postulates or Philonic
speculations. These undoubtedly enter into the statement of
the christology, but the motives and interests of that christology
lie everywhere. The writer's starting-point is not to be sought
in some semi-metaphysical idea like that of the eternal Son as a
supernatural being who dipped into humanity for a brief interval
in order to rise once more and resume his celestial glory ; the
mere fact that the eschatology is retained, though it does not
always accord with the writer's characteristic view of Christ, shows
that he was working from a primitive historical tradition about
Jesus (see above, pp. xlivf.). To this may be added the fact
that he avoids the Hellenistic term o-am;p, a term which had been
associated with the notion of the appearance of a deity hitherto
hidden. 1 The allusions to the historical Jesus are not numerous,
but they are too detailed and direct to be explained away ; he
preached crwT^pta, the message of eschatological bliss ; he be-
longed to the tribe of Judah ; he was sorely tempted, badly
1 He does not use the technical language of the mystery-religions (cp. on
6 4 ), and they cannot be shown to have been present continuously to his mind.
If the argument from silence holds here, he probably felt for them the same
aversion as the devout Philo felt {de Sacrif. 12), though Philo on occasion
would employ their terminology for his own purposes.
Hi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
treated, and finally crucified outside Jerusalem. These are the
main outward traits. But they are bound up with an inter-
pretation of the meaning of Jesus which is not a mere deduction
from messianic mythology or OT prophecies, and it is unreal, in
view of a passage like 5"^, e.g., to imagine that the writer was
doing little more than painting in a human face among the
messianic speculations about a divine Son.
(c) Neither is the sinlessness of Jesus connected with the
circumstances of his human origin. No explanation at all is
offered of how this pre-existent Son entered the world of men.
It is assumed that he did not come out of humanity but that he
came into it ; yet, like Paul and the author of the Fourth Gospel
(i 9f ), our author is not interested in questions about the human
birth. Even when he describes the prototype Melchizedek as
" without father and mother " (7 s ), he is not suggesting any
parallel to the Christ ; the phrase is no more than a fanciful
deduction from the wording or rather the silence of the legend,
just as the original priest-king Gudea says to the goddess in the
Sumerian tale, " I have no mother, thou art my mother ; I have
no father, thou art my father." It is impossible to place this
allusion beside the happy misquotation in io 5 "a body thou
hast prepared for me," and to argue, as Pfleiderer (p. 287) does,
that the incarnation is conceived as purely supernatural. All we
need to do is to recall the Alexandrian belief, voiced in a passage
like Wisd 8 19 (" I was the child of fine parts : to my lot there
fell a good soul, or rather being good I entered a body un-
defiled ") ; the good soul is what we call the personality, the
thinking self, to which God allots a body, and birth, in the ordinary
human way, is not incompatible with the pre-existence of the
soul or self which, prior to birih, is in the keeping of God. The
author of ILoos 'Eftpaiov; could quite well think of the incarna-
tion of Jesus along such lines, even although for him the pre-
existent Christ meant much more than the pre-existent human
soul.
The meaning of the incarnation is, in one aspect, to yield a
perfect example of faith (i2 2f -) in action ; in another and, for the
writer, a deeper, to prepare Jesus, by sympathy and suffering, for
his sacrificial function on behalf of the People. The rationale
of his death is that it is inexplicable except upon the fact of his
relationship to men as their representative and priest before
God (2 ut ). From some passages like 5 3t 7 27 , it has been in-
ferred that Jesus had to offer a sacrifice on his own behalf as
well as on behalf of men (i.e. his tears and cries in Gethsemane),
or that he only overcame his sinful nature when he was raised
to heaven. But this is to read into the letter of the argument
more than the writer ever intended it to convey. The point of
INTRODUCTION liii
his daring argument is that the sufferings of Jesus were not
incompatible with his sinlessness, and at the same time that they
rendered his sacrifice of himself absolutely efficacious. The
writer is evidently in line with the primitive synoptic tradition,
though he never proves the necessity of the sufferings from OT
prophecy, as even his contemporary Peter does, preferring, with
a fine intuition in the form of a religious reflection, to employ
the idea of moral congruity (2 10 ).
(vii.)
The symbolism of the highpriesthood and sacrifice of Jesus
in the heavenly sanctuary is therefore designed to convey the
truth that the relations of men with God are based finally upon
Jesus Christ. In the unseen world which is conceived in this
naive idealistic way, Jesus is central ; through him God is known
and accessible to man, and through him man enjoys forgiveness
and fellowship with God. When Paul once wrote, to. avw
(j>poi'€LT€, to, ano ^TctTe, if he had stopped there he would have
been saying no more than Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius might
have said and did say. But when he added, ov 6 Xpio-rds iariv
(iv Se^ta toB 6eov Ka0-qfj.cvo<;), he defined the upper sphere in a
new sense. So with the author of ITpos 'Efipaiovs. In the real
world of higher things, "everything is dominated by the figure
of the great High Priest at the right hand of the Majesty in the
Heavens, clothed in our nature, compassionate to our infirmities,
able to save to the uttermost, sending timely succour to those
who are in peril, pleading our cause. It is this which faith
sees, this to which faith clings as the divine reality behind and
beyond all that passes, all that tries, daunts, or discourages the
soul : it is this in which it finds the ens realissimum, the very
truth of things, all that is meant by God." 1
Yet while this is the central theme (chs. 7-10), which the
writer feels it is essential for his friends to grasp if they are to
maintain their position, it is one proof of the primitive character
of IIpos 'Efipaiovs that it preserves traces of other and more
popular ideas of Christianity. Thus (a) there is the primitive
idea of the messiah as the heir, who at the resurrection inherits
full power as the divine Son or KA^povd/ios. Strictly speaking,
this does not harmonize with the conception of the Son as
eternal, but it reappears now and then, thrown up from the
eschatological tradition which the author retains (see above,
pp. xxxiii f.). (b) The isolated reference to the overthrow of
the devil is another allusion to ideas which were in the back-
ground of the writer's mind (see on 2 14 - 15 ). (<r) The scanty
1 Denney, The Death of Christ, pp. 239, 240.
liv THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
use made of the favourite conception of Jesus as the divine
Kt'ptos (see below, p. lxiii) is also remarkable. This is not one of
the writer's categories ; the elements of divine authority and
of a relation between the Kvpios and the divine Community
are expressed otherwise, in the idea of the Highpriest and the
People.
Furthermore the category of the Highpriesthood itself was
not large enough for the writer's full message, (a) It could not
be fitted in with his eschatology any more than the idea of the
two worlds could be. The latter is dovetailed into his scheme
by the idea of faith as practically equivalent to hope (in io 35f -);
the world to come actually enters our experience here and now,
but the full realization is reserved for the end, and meantime
Christians must wait, holding fast to the revelation of God in
the present. The former could not be adjusted to the eschat-
ology, and the result is that when the writer passes to speak in
terms of the primitive expectation of the end (io 35 -i2 29 ), he
allows the idea of the Highpriesthood to fall into the back-
ground. In any case the return of Jesus is connected only
with the deliverance of his own People (9 28 ). He does not
come to judge; that is a function reserved for God. The
end is heralded by a cataclysm which is to shake the whole
universe, heaven as well as earth (i nf - i2 26f -), another conception
which, however impressive, by no means harmonizes with the
idea of the two spheres. But the writer's intense consciousness of
living in the last days proved too strong for his speculative theory
of the eternal and the material orders, (b) Again, the High-
priesthood was inadequate to the ethical conceptions of the
writer. It did involve ethical ideas — the cleansing of the con-
science and the prompting of devotion and awe, moral con-
secration, and inward purity (these being the real " worship ") ;
but when he desires to inspire his readers he instinctively turns
to the vivid conception of Jesus as the apx^yo's, as the pioneer
and supreme example of faith on earth.
The latter aspect brings out the idea of a contemplation
of Jesus Christ, a vision of his reality (cp. 3 1 I2 1 - 2 ), which,
when correlated with the idea of a participation in the higher
world of reality, as embodied in the Highpriest aspect, raises
the question, how far is it legitimate to speak of the writer as
mystical ?
(viii.)
To claim or to deny that he was a mystic is, after all, a
question of words. He is devoid of the faith-mysticism which
characterizes Paul. Even when he speaks once of believers being
/u-e'rox ' X/dio-tov (3 14 ), he means no more than their membership
INTRODUCTION lv
in the household of God over which Christ presides ; there is no
hint of the personal trust in Christ which distinguishes "faith"
in Paul. As important is the consideration that the writer does
not take the sacrifices of the levitical cultus as merely symbolizing
union with God. Such is the genuinely mystical interpretation.
To him, on the other hand, sacrifice is an action which bears
upon man's relation to God, and it is from this point of view
that he estimates and criticizes the levitical cultus. But while
technically he is not a mystic, even in the sense in which that
much-abused term may be applied to any NT writer, he has
notes and qualities which might be called " mystical." To call
him an "idealist" is the only alternative, and this is misleading,
for idealism suggests a philosophical detachment which is not suit-
able to IIpos 'Efipaiovs. On the other hand, his profound sense
of the eternal realities, his view of religion as inspired by the
unseen powers of God, his conception of fellowship with God as
based on the eternal presence of Jesus in heaven — these and
other elements in his mind mark him as a definitely unworldly
spirit, impatient of any sensuous medium, even of a sacrificial
meal, that would interpose between the human soul and God.
Not that he uses any pantheistic language ; he is more careful
to avoid this than a writer like the author of First John. His
deep moral nature conceives of God as a transcendent Majestic
Being, before whom believers must feel awe and reverence, even
as they rejoice and are thankful. He has a wholesome sense of
God's authority, and an instinctive aversion to anything like a
sentimental, presumptuous piety (see above, pp. xxxvf.). Yet
as he speaks of the Rest or the City of God, as he describes the
eternal Sanctuary, or the unshaken order of things, or as he
delineates the present position of God's People here in their
constant dependence on the unseen relation between Christ and
God, he almost tempts us to call him " mystical," if " mysticism "
could be restricted to the idea that the human soul may be
united to Absolute Reality or God. He is certainly not
mystical as Philo is ; x there is no hint in TJpos *E/3paiovs, for
example, of an individualistic, occasional rapture, in which the
soul soars above sense and thought into the empyrean of the
unconditioned. He remains in close touch with moral realities
and the historical tradition. But the spirituality of his outlook,
with its speculative reach and its steady openness to influences
pouring from the unseen realities, hardly deserves to be de-
nied the name of " mystical," simply because it is neither wistful
nor emotional.
1 The soundest account of Philo's "mysticism" is by Professor H. A. A.
Kennedy in Philo's Contribution to Religion, p. 2 1 1 f.
Ivi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
§ 3. Style and Diction.
00
Hpos 'Efipaiovs is distinguished, among the prose works of
the primitive church, by its rhythmical cadences. The writer
was acquainted with the oratorical rhythms which were popular-
ized by Isokrates, and although he uses them freely, when he
uses them at all, his periods show traces of this rhetorical
method. According to Aristotle's rules upon the use of paeans
in prose rhythm (Rhet. iii. 8. 6-7), the opening ought to be
- w w w, while v w v - should be reserved for the conclusion.
Our author, however, begins with 7roAupepa)s, an introductory
rhythm (cp. i 5 3 12 ) which seems to be rather a favourite with
v/ <*/ ^/
him, e.g. 3 1 o6ev aSo\<£, 7 10 ert yap ev rrj, I2 25 /3Ae7T€T€ p^, 13 20
o Se 0«os, though he varies it with an anapaest and an iambus
w w - w - {e.g. 2 1 - 4 - 5 - 14 11 16 Sto ovk eVcuo-x, 1 2 12 etc.), or — „ —
(as in 5 12 6 4 7 7 , see below, 13 5 avTos yap dprjK, etc.), or
(as in 2 3 3 5 n 6 Trio-revo-at yap Set, n 39 etc.), or even occasionally
with three trochees - w - w - ^ (^ 12 8 ), or- v (12 11 13 13
etc.), or -ww^ — (*.£. i 13 4 12 ), or even two anapaests (e.g. i 6
5 n J 3 l0 )> or ~ - ( x 3 3 )- He also likes to carry on or even
to begin a new sentence or paragraph with the same or a similar
rhythm as in the end of the preceding, e.g. - W ww — w in
4 11 and 4 12 , or _ w ^ — ^ — ^ in 7 21 and 7 22 , or as in 8 13
(--w -www--w --www--) and 9 1
( — _ ^ — ^w^--^w^ — w -), or — ^ ^ ^ - as in io 10
and io 11 , and to repeat a rhythm twice in succession, as, e.g.,
— ^ w in 2 3 (Tt]\iKavrr]<; a . . . r/ns apx^v Aa )> ^ ^ m
4 1U (o yap etcreAc'OJV cis tt;v . . . a7ro Tun' epywv avrov), OV — w - ^
in 12 1 (roiyapovv kou ^pcis tt;\ikovt' I^ovtcs). The standard
closing rhythm w w v. - does not clearly occur till 11 s (yeyoveVai),
11 4 (en XaAel), 1 1 23 (/JacrtXews), and 12 24 ; it is not so frequent as,
g m g mi M w _- ( 7 2 8- 29 9 26 IQ 34. 35 „18. 15. 28 I2 3 g^ He a ] s0 \fe es
to close with a single or an echoing rhythm like w — w in i 3
((Tvvryi iv v\J/r)\(H<;), 2 10 (dr wv TcAeiworai), 2 18 (triirovOe ireipaaOtis
. . . peWs fio7)6r}o-ai), or w- in 7 19 9 28 (6cj)dr)(r€Tai . . .
(TOiTrjpiav), II 4 (i<ev tw 6eoJ . . . avrov tov 6eov), II 21 etc. A
curious variety in almost parallel clauses occurs in n 1
€<TTIV $€ 7Ti<TTtS cA7ri^O/X€VO)l/ V7TOOTCUriS
7rpayfjLaT(DV cAey^os ou /3A€7ro/x€vo>v,
INTRODUCTION lvii
where the cross cadences are plain, as in Isokrates often. But
at the end of sentences, as a rule, he prefers w w w - w (Trapa-
pvufiev, 2 1 8 6 ), or - w -* (77s AaAov/tey, 2 5 7 6 - 7 etc.) or - w
(&>v TcXetwo-at, 2 10 2 18 3 14 4 3 - n n2i etc.), sometimes the weighty
(2 17 8 2 io 39 11 9 11" etc.), or w - w -( 4 i 58. u io 2. is. 27
11 8 ) now and then, or one or even two (5 11 ) anapaests, often
ending on a short syllable.
He is true to the ancient principle of Isokrates, however, that
prose should be mingled with rhythms of all sorts, especially
iambic and trochaic, and there even happen to be two trimeters
in 12 14 , besides the similar rhythm in i2 13 - 26 . Also he secures
smoothness often by avoiding the practice of making a word
which begins with a vowel follow a word which ends with a
vowel (Sel to. <f>wijevTa. pr) avfXTriTrreiv). Parallelisms in sound,
sense, and form are not infrequent. These axw* 1 ™ °f Isokrates
can be traced, e.g., in i 2 - 3 where, by dnrtfoo-is, ov . . . -n-dvTwv
answers to bs . . . vTroo-rdo-cws avrov, as 8Y ov . . . cVot'^crcv to
(jiipuv . . . 8wd/Li€ws avrov, or as in n 1 , which is, however, a
case of Trapto-tixris or parallelism in form. As in Wisdom, the
accumulation of short syllables, a characteristic of the later
prose, is frequent in IIpos 'EfipaLow; (e.g. in 2 1, 2 7tot€ irapapv
W \m* V W S^ W
Aoyos cyeve-ro /3e/?aio?, 6 9 - 10 Kai 6^0/xeva . . . ov yap aSixos o 0cos),
io 25 n 12 - 19 i2 8 - 9 13 4 etc.). At the same time, IIpos 'E/?paiovs
is not written in parallel rhythm, like Wisdom (cp. Thackeray's
study in Journal of Theological Studies, vi. pp. 232 f.) ; it is
a prose work, and, besides, we do not expect the same
opportunities for using even prose-rhythms in the theological
centre of the writing, though in the opening chapters and
towards the close, the writer has freer play. One or two samples
may be cited, e.g., in the two parallel clauses of i 2 :
ov eQrjKev nX-qpovopov iravTUiV
•^ \^ w ~~ "— \^
01 ov Kai iTTOirjacv tovs aitoias,
or in i 3 where ao-ews avrov answers to a/xeus avrov. In 2 16 the
two clauses begin with and end with eTn\ap.fiaveTai, the
verb being obviously repeated to bring out the anapaestic
rhythm. The " cretic " (- ^ -), which is particularly frequent,
is seen clearly in a carefully wrought passage like 4 8 " 10 :
ci yap avrovs I^crous KaTcnavaev
Iviii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
ovk av 7repi a\\r)<; cA.aA.ci fiera. raur(a) T^/xcpas
ap(a) a.7roAei7rcTai o"a/3/3aTtcr^tos tu Aaa> tov #cov
o yap eicrcA#a>v ci? T77V /<aTa7raucriv airrov
Kat airro? KaTC7rav(rcv
a7ro twv cpywv aurou
uxnrep airo to>v iSitov o 0eo?.
There is a repeated attempt at balance, e.g. of clauses, like
(n 33 ):
rjpyaaavTo 8i.Ka.iocrvvr)v
€tt(tv)(Ov crrayycAiwv,
where both have the same number of syllables and end on the
same rhythm ; or, in the next verse, where Suva/uv 7rvpos is
echoed in ccpvyov oro/xa, while there is a similar harmony of sound
in the closing syllables of
VpOL CV TToXeflW
^ >-• ^» —
wav aWoTpia)v,
and in vv. 37 and 38 the balancing is obvious in
tv <j>ovvi p.a^aLprj^
irtpLrjXOov cv
VCTTtpOVfJLCVOl OXifi
cv cp7//xiai?
or in the chiming of 38 and 39 :
Kai <nry]\aioi'i Kat toi? o7rais rr]<; y??s
Kat ovtol 7ravTC? fiapTvprjOti'Tts 8.
INTRODUCTION lix
As for the bearing of this rhythmical structure on the text, it
does not affect the main passages in question {e.g. 2 9 6 2 ) ; it
rather supports and indeed may explain the omission of tw before
viw in i 1 , and of oAw in 2 2 , as well as the right of /u.cAAoVtwv to
stand in 9 11 and in io 1 ; it might favour, however, ayyl\a>v ycvd-
/u,€vos instead of yev6p.evo<; twv dyye'Awv in i 4 , and the insertion of
rj vTupa. in 1 i u and of 6pu in 12 18 , if it were pressed ; while, on the
other hand, as employed by Blass, it buttresses the wrong insertion
of fj.lxP c tc'Aous fieftaiav in 3 s , and inferior readings like o-vyK€Kepao--
fxtvowz and a.Kova-$a.(TLv in 4 2 , i.K^i.^pp.ivoi^ (D*) in 9 28 , el in 12", iv
XoXrj in i2 15 ,and dvix^dai in 13 22 . But the writer is not shackled
to a-TLxoi, though his mind evidently was familiar with the rhythms
in question.
(ii.)
There are traces of vernacular Greek, but the language and
style are idiomatic on the whole. Thus the perfect is sometimes
employed for the sake of literary variety, to relieve a line of aorists
(e.g. n 17 - 28 ), and indeed is often used aoristically, without any
subtle intention (cp. on 7 6 etc.); it is pedantic to press signifi-
cance into the tenses, without carefully watching the contemporary
Hellenistic usage. The definite article is sparingly employed.
MeV . . . Se, on the other hand, is more common, as we might
expect from the antithetical predilections of the author in his
dialectic. As for the prepositions, the avoidance of crvv is re-
markable (cp. on 12 14 ), all the more remarkable since our author
is fond of verbs compounded with avv. Oratorical imperatives
are used with effect (e.g. 3 1 - 12 7* io 32 etc.), also double (i 5 i 13 -n
12 5 ' 7 ) and even triple (3 16 ' 18 ) dramatic questions, as well as single
ones (2 s - 4 7 11 o 13 - 14 io 29 n 32 12 9 ). The style is persuasive,
neither diffuse nor concise. The writer shows real skill in man-
aging his transitions, suggesting an idea before he develops it (e.g.
in 2 17 5 6 ). He also employs artistically parentheses and asides,
sometimes of considerable length (e.g. /ca0w? . . . KaTdVavcriv
fj.ov 3 7 - 11 5 13 - 14 8 5 ii 13-16 ), now and then slightly irrelevant (e.g. 3 4 ),
but occasionally, as in Plato, of real weight (e.g. 2 16 7 12 ; oi&ev
. . . vofjios 7 iy 10 , 7rio"ros yap o tTrayyeiAayacvos 10" ; wv ovk ijv
a£ios 6 koct/aos ii 38 13 14 ) j they frequently explain a phrase (tovt
(.(ttlv tov 8id/3o\ov 2 14 y tovt €<ttiv Tot's aSe\<pov<; avTwi' 7 5 ; 6 Aaos
yap £7r avTrjs vevop,o6eT7)Tat 7 11 ; t^tis . . . Zveo-TrjKOTa o. 9 ; tovt ilo~tiv
. . . KTtcrews 9 11 ; tovt ccttiv t^s crap»cos aiioi! io 20 12 20 ), especially
an OT citation (e.g. 4 10 6 13 7 2, 7 ; amves /tara vo/iov irpoo-cpepovTai io 8 )
on which the writer comments in passing. One outstanding feature
of the style (for IIpos 'EySpaious is Ae'£i? Ka.Teo-Tpa.fj.p.i'vr), not At'£is
elpopevr) in the sense of rapid dialogue) is the number of long,
carefully constructed sentences (e.g. i 1-4 2 2 " 4 2 14 - 15 3 12 ' 16 4 12 - 18 ,
Ix THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
cl-3 r7-10 54-6 gl6-20 «l-3 g4-6 g2-5 g6-10 q24-26 io 11-13 io 19-25 j j 24-26 I2 l-2
i2 18 ' 24 ). Yet his short sentences are most effective, e.g. 2 18 4 s io 18 ,
and once at least (3 16 " 18 ) there is a touch of the rapid, staccato
diatribe style, which lent itself to the needs of popular preach-
ing. He loves a play on words or assonance, e.g. KapBia Trovrjpa
a7rio"n'a<; ev tu aTroa-rrjvai (3 12 ), TrapaKaXeLTC tavTOUS . . . d^pis
ov to o~r)p.€pov KaXciTai (3 13 ), ep.a6ev acp' £>v ZiraOtv (5 s ), xaXov t(
ko.1 kolkov (5 14 ), aira£ Trpoo-eve^Oets eis to 7toXXwv aveveyKelv dpapTias
(9 28 )> toctovtov t^ovTcs TrcpiKCiuevov r)plv vecpos p.apTvpwv . . . Tpe^co-
p.ev tov TrpoK€Lp.€vov rjpxv dydva (I2 1 ), ii<XeXr)o~6e tJJs TrapaKXrjo~eu><i
. . . fxr/Sk ixXvov (12 5 ), p-evovo-av 7roA.1v aXXa tt/v peAAoucrav (13 14 ).
Also he occasionally likes to use a term in two senses, e.g. £wv
yap 6 Xdyos tov Oeov . . . 7rpos ov rjplv 6 Xdyos (4 12, 13 ), and BiaOrjKrj
in 9 15f - From first to last he is addicted to the gentle practice of
alliteration, e.g. iroXvp.epw<; ko.1 7roAuTpd7rws irdXai 6 #€os XaXrjo-a<;
tois TraTpaaiv cv tois Trpo(prJTai<; (l 1 )) Tracra 7rapd/3acris <cai TrapaKor)
(2 2 ), acprJKev auTui avviroTaKTov (2 s ), tov d7rdo-ToA.ov xai dpY/epe'a (3 1 ),
KatTOL . . . a.7ro KaTaf3oXr)s KOcrp.ov (4 3 ), lvdvp.r)cre.tov koX evvoiwv (4 12 ),
airaTtop, ap-r/Tiop, ayeveaXoyr/Tos (7 s ), o\d to avTr}<; do"#ev€S kcu dvw-
(peXes (7 18 ), eis to 7ra.vTeA.ts . . . tous 7rpoo-epxope'vous . . . 7rdvT0Te
£wv (7 25 ), 01 K£KXrjfj.€voi tt}s aiwviov KXrjpovop.ia<; (9 15 ), tlcrrjXdiV dyia
Xpio~TO<> avTLTVTra twv aXrjOiviov, aXX eis aurdv (9 s4 ), eVei e'Sei avTov
TToXXaKLS TraOelv airo Kara/JoA^s Kocrp.ov (9 26 ), a7ra£ £7ri crwTcAeta twv
aliovwv eis a0€Trjo-iv Trjs dpapTias (9 2t5 ), d7TOK€iTat Tots dv0pa>7rois a7ra£
aTro^aveiv (9 27 ), ev auTais dvdpvTicas dpapriaiv (to 3 ), dSvvaTov yap
afpa Tavpcov Kai Tpdyiov acpaipeiv dpapTias (io 4 ), OXixpecnv 0eaTpi£o-
pevoi (io 33 ), ei pev eK€Lvrj<; ip.vrjp,6v€VOV acf> t;s i£e/3r]o~av (il 15 ), Tracra
pev 7rai8eia 7rpos p.ev to 7rapdv (12 11 ), 7repio-o"OTe'pws Se TrapaKaXd tovto
TTotrjcraL (13 19 ). On the other hand, he seems deliberately to
avoid alliteration once by altering 8u0ep.rjv into eVoiiio-a (8 9 ).
One or two other features of his style are remarkable. There
is, for example, the predilection for sonorous compounds like
pLio-OaTroSocria and €U7rcpto-TaTos, and also the love of adjectives in a
privative, which Aristotle noted as a mark of the elevated style
(Rhet. iii. 6. 7); in IIp6s 'E^patovs there are no fewer than
twenty-four such, while even in the historical romance miscalled
3 Mac. there are no more than twenty. Other items are the
fondness for nouns ending in -is (cp. on 2 4 ), the extensive use of
periphrases (cp. on 4 11 ), and of the infinitive and the preposition
(see on 3 12 ). The use of a word like T€ is also noticeable.
Apart from eleven occurrences of tc kou, and one doubtful case
of re . . . tc . . . xai (6 2 ), tc links (a) substantives without any
preceding k<u or Se'; (i>) principal clauses, as in 12 2 ; and (c) par-
ticipial clauses, as in i 3 6 4 . Emphasis is generally brought out
by throwing a word forward or to the very end of the sentence,
INTRODUCTION lxi
The writer is also in the habit of interposing several words
between the article or pronoun and the substantive ; e.g.
I 4 8ia<f)opii)7 epov Trap' avrovs K(K\r)puv6fxr]K€v oro/xa.
4 8 ovk av Trepi czAAt/s eA.aA.ei perd ravra 17/i.e'pas.
10 11 Tas auras 7roAAd;as 7rpoo~(f>4pu)i' Ovaias.
10 12 p.iav VTYip dp-apTiCov irpoo-eveyKas dva-iav.
IO 27 TTvpb<; £77X05 icrOUiv p.e'AAovTOS tovs VTrtvavTiovs.
I2 3 tov TOLavTrjv V7rop.evevr/KOTa wo Tajy d/xapTwXwv ets ai'TOV
dvriAoyiav.
Further, his use of the genitive absolute is to be noted, e.g.,
in —
2 4 <TVV€Trip.apTVpOVVTOS TOV $€OV kt\.
4 1 KaraXeLTrofi.evrj<i . . . avrov (seven words between p.rj xroTe
and 8oKrj ns).
4 8 KatVot Taiy ipyoyv . . . yevrjdevTUiV.
7 12 /xeTaTi^e/AeVris yap tt}s lepwo-w^s.
8 4 OVT(t)V TU)C TTpO(T(pep6vT(DV KCLTO. VOp,OV TO. Owpa.
9 6 toutwv oe oirrco Ka.TajKtvao-p.£i'<i>v.
9 8 toSto c)TiAoi3vTos tov IIvei;p;aTos toC 'Ayiov . . . en tt}s
vpiiiTrjS dKy}vrj<i e'^ouV^s o"Tdo-iv.
9 15 0ai aVou yevofievov . . . 7rapa/3do-eu)v (ten words between
o7Tu>s and t. e. Xafiwo-iv).
9 19 AaAr/^eicnis yap irdo'-qs evroAr;? . . . Mwuce'cos.
IO 26 €kovo"io)S yap dp.apTay ovtwv rjfxwv.
II 4 p.apTvpovvTO<i ex! tois Soopois auToi) tou 0eov.
Finally, there is an obvious endeavour to avoid harsh hiatus,
sometimes by the choice of a term (e.g. Sid™ for on, as in
Polybius and Theophrastus, or axpis for a^pi, or ws for on), and
a distinct fondness for compound verbs; Moulton (ii. 11),
reckoning by the pages of WH, finds that while Mark has 57
compound verbs per page, Acts 6-25, Hebrews has 80, and Paul
only 3"8.
His vocabulary is drawn from a wide range of reading.
Whether he was a Jew by birth or not, he goes far beyond the
LXX. His Greek recalls that of authors like Musonius Rufus
and the philosophical Greek writers, and he affects more or less
technical philosophical terms like aio-^rr/piov, S^pioupyos, OeXrjais,
p.eTpio7ra0eiv, TtAeiow, Te'Aos, Tifnopia, and wroSeiyp.a. He was
acquainted with the books of the Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and
perhaps even Philo. This last affinity is strongly marked. The
more he differs from Philo in his speculative interpretation of
religion, the more I feel, after a prolonged study of Philo, that
our author had probably read some of his works ; it is not easy
lxii THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
to avoid the conclusion that his acquaintance with the Hellenistic
Judaism of Alexandria included an acquaintance with Philo's
writings. However this may be, the terminology of the Wisdom
literature was as familiar to this early Christian SiSacn«z\os as to
the author of James. 1
As for the LXX, the text he used — and he uses it with some
freedom in quotations — must have resembled that of A (cp.
Buchel in Studien und Kritiken, 1906, pp. 508-591), upon the
whole. It is to his acquaintance with the LXX that occasional
" Semitisms " in his style may be referred, e.g. the e7r icrxarov of
I 1 , the Kap&a a7n.0-Tias of 3 12 , the Iv ra XiyeaOai of 3 15 , the Opovos
Trjs x«p""os of 4 16 , and the phrases in 5 7 g 5 and 12 15 . But this is a
minor point. We note rather that (a) he sometimes uses LXX
terms (e.g. Suvapeis) in a special Hellenistic sense, or in a sense of
his own. (b) Again, it is the use of the contents of the LXX which
is really significant. The nearest approach to ILoos 'E/3paious, in
its treatment of the OT, is the speech of Stephen, the Hellenistic
Jewish Christian, in Ac 7 1 ' 53 , where we have a similar use of the
typological method and a similar freedom in handling the OT
story (cp. EBi. 4791, e.g. Ac 7 29 =He n 27 ), which proves how
men like these writers, for all their reverence for the LXX, sat
wonderfully free to the letter of the scripture and employed,
without hesitation, later Jewish traditions in order to interpret it
for their own purposes. But Stephen's reading of the OT is
not that of IIpos 'EySpcuous. The latter never dwells on the
crime of the Jews in putting Jesus to death (12 3 is merely a
general, passing allusion), whereas Stephen makes that crime
part and parcel of the age-long obstinacy and externalism which
had characterized Israel. In IIpos f E/?pcuous, again, the kXt]-
povo/xia of Palestine is spiritualized (3 7f- ), whereas Stephen merely
argues that its local possession by Israel was not final. Stephen,
again, argues that believers in Jesus are the true heirs of the OT
spiritual revelation, not the Jews ; while in IIpos 'E/?paious the
continuity of the People is assumed, and Christians are regarded
as ipso facto the People of God, without any allusion to the Jews
having forfeited their privileges. Here the author of IIpos
'E/?paious differs even from the parable of Jesus (cp. on i 1 ); he
conveys no censure of the historical Jews who had been
responsible for the crucifixion. The occasional resemblances
between Stephen's speech and IIpos 'E/3paious are not so signifi-
cant as the difference of tone and temper between them, e.g. in
their conceptions of Moses and of the angels (cp. on He 2 2 ).
For another thing, (c) the conception of God derives largely
1 On the philosophical background of ideas as well as of words, see A. R.
Eagar in Hermathena, xi. pp. 263-287 ; and H. T. Andrews in Expositor*,
xiv. pp. 348 f.
INTRODUCTION lxiii
from the element of awe and majesty in the OT (see on i 3
4 13 io 30 - 31 12 29 ). This has been already noted (see pp. xxxvf.).
But linguistically there are characteristic elements in the various
allusions to God. Apart altogether from a stately term like
MeyaXwo-vvr) (i 8 8 1 ) or Ao'fa (9 s ), we get a singular number of
indirect, descriptive phrases like 5V ov to. -n-avTa ko.1 oV ov ra
travra (2 10 ), tw iroirjcravTi avrov (3 2 ), 7rp6s ov rjpuv 6 Ao'yo? (4 13 ),
tov oWdpcvov aw^ttv o-vtov eV 0a.vd.TOv (5"), 6 eVayyciAdpci'os
(io 23 II 11 ), tov aofjCLTOV (il 27 ), tov drr ovpavaiv xPVf xaT % ol ' Ta i 1 2 25 )-
After i 1 , indeed, there is a slight tendency to avoid the use of
6 Oeos and to prefer such periphrases of a solemn and even
liturgical tone. It is noticeable, e.g., that while 6 deos occurs
about seventy-eight times in 2 Co (which is about the same
length as IIpos 'E/3pcuovs), it only occurs fifty-five times in the
latter writing. The title (6) Kvpios is also rare ; it was probably
one of the reasons that suggested the quotation in i 10f - (xvpu),
but it is mainly applied to God (12 14 ), and almost invariably
in connexion with OT quotations (7 21 8 2 8 8f - io 16 io 30 12 6 13 6 ).
Once only it is applied to Jesus (2 s ), apart from the solitary use of
6 Kvpios rjfxwv in 7 14 ( + 'It/o-ov?, 33. 104. 2127) and in the doxology
with 'It/o-oCs (13 20 ). It is not a term to which the author attaches
special significance (cp. on 7 24 ). 'Itjo-ou?, as in (i) 2 9 (tov o"e
/?pa;(u Tt nap dyye'Aovs r)\aTTwp.evov /JAeVopev 'Irjo-ovv), (ii) 3 1
(KaTavorjaaTe tov olttocttoXov kcu dp-^upia t^s 6/xoAoyias fjp.wv
'lyo-ovv), (iii) 4 14 (e^ovrcs ovv dp^iepea pcyav SuXrjXvdora tovs
ovpavovs, 'It/o-ovv), (iv) 6 20 (oVov TrpoSpofJLOS VTrip rjfiwv flarjXBev
'I-qcrovs), (v) 7 22 (/caTa too-o£tov ko.1 /cpeiTTOvos BiaBrJKrjs yeyovev
eyyvos 'Ir]o~ov<;), (vi) IO 19 (iv t<S cupaTi 'Ir/coC), (vii) 12 2 (tov ttjs
7uot€0>s dp\r]ybv ko.1 TeAeitDTTJv 'Ir^o-ovv), (viii) I2 24 (koX 8ta0rjK-q<i
vcas p.€0-LT7] 'Irjaov), (ix) 13 12 (816 ko.1 'Irjaovs), (x) 13 20 (tov
7Toip.iva twv 7rpo/?aTWv tov pe'yav Iv aipaTi Sia#>;/o7s alwvtov, tov
Kvpiov rjp.C)v 'Irjaovv), is generally the climax of an impressive
phrase or phrases. The unique use of this name in such con-
nexions soon led to liturgical or theological expansions, as, e.g.,
3 1 ( + Xpto-Tov, C C KL* 104. 326. 1 1 75 syr arm Orig. Chrys.),
6 20 ( + Xpi<rro's, D), io 19 ( + T0O Xpio-Tov, 1827 vg), 13 12 ( + 6, 5 [as
Col 3 17 ]. 330 [as Col 3 17 ]. 440 [as Ro 8 11 ]. 623. 635. 1867. 2004 :
+ 6 Kvpios, 1836 : Xpto-To?, 487), 13 20 ( + Xpio-ToV, D * 5. 104. 177.
2 4i- 3 2 3- 337- 43 6 - 547- 623°. 635. 1831. 1837. 1891 lat dfto1
syr hkl Chrys.). Xpio-To? (3 6 9"- 24 ), or 6 Xpio-To's (3 14 5* 6 1 9 14 - 28 -
1 1 26 ), has also been altered ; e.g. 3 14 (nvptov, 256. 2127 : Oeov, 635 :
om. tov, 467), 5 6 (om. 6, 462), 6 1 (Oeov, 38. 2005 : om. 429), 9 24
( + 6 C c 13*104. 256. 263. 326.467. 1739. 2127 arm: 'It/o-ovs,
823 vg Orig.), but less seriously. 'lyo-ovs Xpio-To's only occurs
thrice ( 1 o 10 13 s - 21 ).
Ixiv THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
So far as vocabulary and style go, there are certain affinities between
Hpds 'ElSpaLous and {a) the Lucan writings, {6) I Peter, and, to a less degree,
(c) the Pastoral Epistles ; but an examination of the data indicates that the
affinities are not sufficient to do more than indicate a common atmosphere of
thought and expression at some points. I do not now feel it safe to go
beyond this cautious verdict. The author of IIp6s 'EfipaLovs has idiosyncrasies
which are much more significant than any such affinities. His literary re-
lations with the other NT writers, if he had any, remain obscure, with two
exceptions. Whether he had read Paul's epistles or not, depends in part on
the question whether the quotation in icr" was derived outright from Ro
i2 19 or from some florilegium of messianic texts; but, apart from this, there
are numerous cases of what seem to be reminiscences of Paul. As foi
i Peter, our author has some connexion, which remains unsolved, with what
probably was an earlier document.
To sum up. He has a sense of literary nicety, which
enters into his earnest religious argument without rendering it
artificial or over-elaborate. He has an art of words, which is
more than an unconscious sense of rhythm. He has the style
of a trained speaker; it is style, yet style at the command
of a devout genius. " Of Hellenistic writers he is the freest
from the monotony that is the chief fault of Hellenistic com-
pared with literary Greek ; his words do not follow each other
in a mechanically necessary order, but are arranged so as to
emphasize their relative importance, and to make the sentences
effective as well as intelligible. One may say that he deals with
the biblical language (understanding by this the Hellenistic
dialect founded on the LXX, not merely his actual quotations
from it) ... as a preacher, whose first duty is to be faithful,
but his second to be eloquent " (VV. H. Simcox, The Writers of
the JVT, p. 43).
§ 4. Text, Commentaries, etc.
00
The textual criticism of IIpos 'E/3/Wovs is bound up with the
general criticism of the Pauline text (cp. Romans in the
present series, pp. lxiii ff.), but it has one or two special features
of its own, which are due in part (a) to the fact of its exclusion
from the NT Canon in some quarters of the early church, and
(b) also to the fact that the Pauline F (Greek text) and G are
wholly, while B C H M N W p 13 and 048 are partially, missing.
It is accidental that the Philoxenian Syriac version has not
survived, but the former phenomenon (a) accounts for the
absence of IIpos 'E/Jpcuous not simply from the Gothic version,
but also from the old Latin African bible-text for which
Tertullian and Cyprian, the pseudo-Augustinian Speculum and
"Ambrosiaster," furnish such valuable evidence in the case of
n saec.
IV. ('
A „
V.
B „
IV.
c „
V.
D „
(vi.)
INTRODUCTION lxv
the Pauline epistles. The {b) defectiveness of B, etc., on the
other hand, is to some extent made up by the discovery of the
two early papyrus-fragments.
The following is a list of the MSS and the main cursives, the
notations of Gregory and von Soden being added in brackets,
for the sake of convenience in reference :
Codicum Index.
v.) [oi : 5 2).
[02 : 5 4].
[03 : 5 1] cont. I 1 -^ 3 : for remainder cp. cursive
293-
[04 : 5 3] cont. 2 4 -7 26 9 15 -io 2 * I2 16 -i3 2s .
[06 : a 1026] cont. i 1 -^ 20 . Codex Claromontanus
is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is
poorly 1 reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.)
E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of
the latter (i 1 -^ 8 ) is therefore of no independent
value (cp. Hort in WH, §§ 335-337) ; for its
Latin text, as well as for that of F = codex
Augiensis (saec. be), whose Greek text of Ilpds
'Efipalovs has not been preserved, see below,
p. lxix.
H „ vi. [015 : a 1022] cont. I s " 8 2 11 " 16 3 13 - 1 * 4 12 - 14 io 1 " 7 - S *- M
I2 io-is ^24-26 . mutilated fragments, at Moscow
and Paris, of codex Coislinianus.
[018 : I 1 ].
[020 : a 5] cont. I 1 -I3 10 .
[0121 : a 1031] cont. i 1 ^ 3 I2 20 -I3 2s .
[0122 : o 1030] cont. 5 8 -6 10 .
[025 : a 3] cont. i'-I2 8 I2 11 -I3 2S .
[a 1034] cont. 2 14 -5 5 io 8 -ii 13 u 28 -^ 17 : Oxyrhyn-
chus Papyri, iv. (1904) 36-48. The tendency,
in 2 14 -5 5 , to agree with B "in the omission of
unessential words and phrases . . . gives the
papyrus peculiar value in the later chapters,
where B is deficient"; thus p ls partially makes
up for the loss of B after 9 1 *. Otherwise the
text of the papyrus is closest to that of D.
p 18 ,, iv. [o 1043] cont. 9 12 " la : Oxyrhynchus Papyri, viii.
(1911) II-13.
* ,, (vi. ?) viii.-ix. [044 : 5 6] cont. i 1 ^ 11 9 19 -I3 25 .
W „ (iv.-vi.) [I] cont. i 1 ' 3 - 9 " 12 2 <-»- "-" 3 «-«- m-m 4 s-6. m-m 56-7
gl-3. 10-13. 20 yl-2. 7-11. 18-20. 27-28 gl. 7-9 gl-4. 9-11. 16-19.
28-27 j 5-8. 16-ia 26-29. 3S-38 ] j 6-7. 12-15. 2U-24. 31-33. 38-40
I2 1. 7-9. 16-18. 2S-27 j 37-9. 16-18. 2S-2S . NT MSS fa
Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp.
of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexan-
drian text, and is "quite free from Western
readings."
1 An instance may be found in io 33 , where a corrector of D obelized the
first and last letters of bveih^6^voi and wrote over it deaTpt^S/Mevoi. In E
we get the absurd vi.d^o/xevodeaTot^o/j.ei'OL (cp. Gregory's Textkritik des NT,
i. 109).
K
J J
IX.
L
IX.
M
IX.
N
> J
IX.
P
IX.
P*
IV.
lxvi
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
048 saec. v.
[a 1] cont. 11
palimpsest.
0142 ,, X.
[o 6 ].
0151 ,, xii.
O 21 ].
32
-13*
Codex Patiriensis is a
Three specimens of how the MSS group themselves may be
printed, (a) shows the relation between M and the papyrus p 13 :
M agrees with p u in eight places :
3 1 'Irjffovv.
3 3 56£t?5 ovtos ( + K L vg, alone).
3 4 iravra.
3 8 idv.
3 9 vfj.Coi> iv SoKifxacria.
3 10 Tavrr}.
3 13 rtj &■ ii/iQv.
4 2 <rvyK€K(e)pacrn4i>ovs.
It opposes p 13 ( + B) in
3 2 + SX v .
3 6 -+- fJ-txPL tAous ftefialar.
3 9 + M«-
4 s otv.
4 s + ti)v before KardTravaiv.
M has some remarkable affinities with the text of Origen {e.g. I s 1' 2 1 ).
(b) exhibits the relations of n and D*, showing how A and B agree with them
on the whole, and how p 13 again falls into this group :
k and D agree m
I 2 position of iiroi-rjoev ABM
8 4 otv
AB
I 8 + Kai before t/ pd/35os ABM
8 4 om. tu>v Uptuv
AB
2 1 irapapvu>/j.€V A B
8 U om. avrQu after puKpov A B
2 7 + Kai KCLTtaTTJlTaS . . .
9 5 x € P 0V fiL v (alone of un
<rov A
cials)
2 IB 5ov\iat
9 9 Kad' fjv
A B
3 1 om. Xpurr6p ABM
P 13
9 21 epavricrev
A
3* irdvra ABM
P 13
o?* om. 6 before Xptor6s
A
3 10 Tat/7-7? ABM
P 13
io 10 om. ol ,, did
A
3 19 iC (so f) ABM
P 1S
io 12 oOtoi
A
4 1 KaTa\nrofj.4vrjt (alone),
IO 16 Stdvotav
A
except for p 13
IO 23 XeXovufidvoi
4 7 irpoelprjrai A (B)
p> 3
1 1 3 rb fi\€Tr6pievov
A
4 16 (rvvrradrjaai A B*
II 19 Swards
4 16 £Xeos A B
1 1 29 + 777 J
A
5 3 $1 avr-qv A B
II 30 tireaav
A
5 8 fxepl a/j.apTiu>i> A B
II 32 p.e ydp
A
6 10 om. rod k6itov A B
1 1 84 p.axaipT}S (so 1 1 37 )
A
6 16 om. fUv A B
1 2 s iraidias
A
7* Aevl
12 8 position of i<rre
A
7 6 om. t6v before 'Afipad/j. B
I2 9 TroXtf (so I2 25 )
A
7 10 ,, 6 ,, Me\x«r«5<?K B
12 21 ZKTpofj.os (alone)
7 11 aiiTTJs A B
13 3 KaKouxovfidvuv
A
M
7 11 vevopLodtTrjTai A B
13 4 ydp
A
M
7 16 aapKivr)% A B
13 8 <? x 0&
A
M
7 17 fxaprvpflrai A B
13 21 om. £py<$
8 2 om. ical before ovk &v-
dpuiros B
-.1*
,13
-.U
INTRODUCTION
lxvii
(c) exhibits characteristic readings of H, with some of its
main allies :
I 8 Kadapi.<Tfj.6v K
AB
D b
H #
P
v g
arm
2 15 dovXias K
D*
H
P
3 1S ris if- v/j-Cov p 13 k
A
C
H
MP
v g
pesh
arm
boh
3 1 * rod Xpiurov 767. N
AB
C D
WH
MP
v g
3 17 tLctii> Si h
B
C D
H
P
KL
sah
4 12 ivepyijs N
A
C D
H
P
KL vg
4 12 *pvXVS K
AB
C
H
P
L(vg
arm
boh)
4 16 avvTradrjcrai K
AB*C
H
IO 1 0i><rtas (-ai>rtDv)
A
C D
H
KL vg
IO 1 aft
D*
H
L
IO 1 dwdrai
D
H
KL vg
boh
IO 2 om. owe
H*
(vg) pesh
IO 2 KeKadapiafxivovs N
D
H
P
K
IO 6 ijvddKriaas
A
C D*
WH
P
I O 34 rots SecTfilon p 13
A
D*
H
v g
pesh
boh
IO^eai/rous p 13 N
A
H
v g
boh
I0 34 ii7rapfi»' p 13 N*
A
D*
H*
v g
boh
l0 35 /ie7 £ i^'?>' /Utc^. X
A
D
WH
P
I0 37 xpon6i K c
A
D c
WH
P
KL
IO 38 /*ou £k iriareus N
A
H*
v g
arm
I2 11 7r£(ra 5i p 13 x c
A
D c
H
KL vg
pesh
boh
I2 ls 7rot^(raTe N
A
D
H
KL
I2 18 CLVT7JS (p 13 )
A
H
P
I2 16 ai>Tou K c
D*
H
P
KL
13 21 om. tGiv aiwviov
C C D
H
arm
I^tjIxCiv K*
A
C D*
WH
M vg
pesh
arm
boh sah
I3 !6 d/»i)i'. k°
A
C D
H
PMK vg
pesh (arm
)boh
Cursives.
I
saec.
X.
[5 254]
189
saec
xiii.
2
s>
xii.
[a 253]
203
1 »
xii.
5
19
xiv.
[5 453]
206
> »
xiii.
6
>»
xiii.
[5 356]
cont.
ll- 9 3
209
>>
xiv.
IO 22 -
-13 20
216
>>
xiv.
3i
II
xi.
[a 103]
217
1)
xi.
33
II
ix.
-x. [5 48]
Hort'
s 17
218
»i
xiii.
35
11
xiii.
[5 309]
221
» 1
X.
38
11
xiii.
[5 355]
226
19
xi.
47
II
xi.
[0"- lu3 ]
227
II
xii.
69
>>
xv.
[5 505]
241
II
xi.
88
)»
xii.
[a 200]
242
>)
xii.
90
11
xvi.
[5 652]
253
11
xi.
93
II
x.
[* 51]
255
•1
xi.
103
>>
xi.
[O 28 ]
256
11
xii.
104
I)
xi.
[a 103]
257
11
xiv.
112
11
xi.
[E» 10 ]
263
1 1
xiii. -
177
11
xi.
[a 106]
293
11
XV.
181
II
xi.
[a 101]
296
11
xvi.
188
tl
xii.
[a 200]
323
II
xi.-
[9» M ]
[a 203]
[a 365]
[* 457]
[a 469]
[a 1065] cont. 1 1 -6 t
[5300]
[a 69]
[8 156]
[a 258]
[5 507]
[5 206]
[5 152]
[a 174]
[a 216]
[a 466]
-xiv. [5 372]
[a 1574] cont. Q'*- 1 3 a
[5 600]
-xii. [a 157]
Ixviii
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
326 saec.
327 .,
330 ,,
337 t,
371 »»
378 „
383 .,
418 ,,
424 >,
429 >,
431 n
436 ,,
440 „
442
456
460
461
462
487
489
491
506
522
547
614
623
633
639
642
794
808
823
876
913
915
917
919
920
927
1 1
)!
II
>>
Xll.
xiii.
xii.
xii.
xiv.
xii.
xiii.
xv.
xi.
xiii.
xii.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
x. ?
xiii.
xiii.
xv.
xi.
xiv.
xi.
xi.
xvi.
xi.
xiii.
xi.
xi.
xi.
xv.
xiv.
xii.
xiii.
xiii.
xiv.
xiii.
xii.
xi.
x.
xii.
-13
,25
[<* 257]
[O 36 ]
[5 259]
[a 205]
[a 1 43 1] cont. 7
[a 258]
[a 353] cont. 1M3 7
(x.) [a 1530] cont. I 1 -
I3 17
[0 12 ] Hort's 67
-xiv. [a 398]
[5 268]
[a 172]
[5 260]
[0 18 ]
[a 52]
-xiv. [a 397]
359]
[a 502]
[a 171]
[5 459] Hort's 102
[5 152]
[5 101]
[5 602]
[3 157]
[a 364]
t« 173]
[a 161]
[a 169]
[a 552]
cont. i J -7
18
[5 454]
[5 203]
[5 368]
[a 356]
[a 470]
[a 382]
[a 264]
[a "3]
[» 55]
[5251]
9W-13
25
941 saec.
xiii. [5 369]
999
3 >
xiii. [5 353]
uoS
>)
xiii. [a 370]
1 149
M
xiii. [5 370]
1175
it
x. [a 74] cont. i 1 -3 8 6*-
I3 20
1243
>»
xii. [5 198]
1245
1*
xi. [a 158]
128S (
81)
xi. fa 162]
1311
11
xi. [a 170]
1319
ii
xi. [5 180]
1518
>>
xi. [a 116]
1522
)>
xiv. [a 464]
1525
it
xiii. [a 361] cont. I 1 -^ 8
1610
>>
xiv. [a 468]
161 1
11
xii. [a 208]
1739
1 »
x. [a 78]
1758
11
xiii. [a 396] cont. I 1 -I3 U
1765
11
xiv. [a 486]
1827
>>
xiii. [a 367]
1831
11
xiv. [a 472]
1836
11
x. [a 65]
1837
11
xi. [0 192]
1838
11
xi. [a 175]
1845
11
x. [a 64]
1852
!»
xi. [a 114] cont. i'-ii 10
1867
>>
xi.-xii. [a 154]
1872
>!
xii. [a 209]
1873
It
xii. [a 252]
1891
II
x. [a 62]
1898
II
x. [a 70]
1906
11
xi. [On I"']
1908
1 1
xi. [0 * 103 ]
1912
II
x.-xi. [a 1066]
2004
It
x. [a 56]
2055
It
xiv. [a 1436] cont. i'-7 l
2127
11
xii. [5 202]
2138
II
xi. [a 116]
2143
II
xi.-xii. [a 184]
2147
11
xii. [5 299]
Of these some like 5 and 33 and 442 and 999 and 1908, are
of the first rank; von Soden pronounces 1288 "a very good
representative " of his H text. Yet even the best cursives, like
the uncials, may stray (see on 4 16 ). As a specimen of how one
good cursive goes, I append this note of some characteristic
readings in 424** :
I s om. avrov after dwa/xeus
M
Orig
d e f vg
om. TifiGiv
h* A B D* MP
2 9 x w P^
M
Orig
3 1 om. Xp«JT<5i»
k A BD*C* M P
d e f vg sah
3 6 «s
D* M
de f vg
3 10 ravTj)
« ABD* M
sah
INTRODUCTION
lxix
-5
23
9
IO 1
io : *
IO'
II J
12'
I2 2
I2 a
,34
irl<TT€U)t
vnas (om. rivd)
om. Tuif itpeuv
KO.6' fjV
Kadapifrrai (dvdyKrj)
Svvavrai
om. \4yei Kvpios
om. avrov
avTrjs
air' ovpavov
aelffu
k A B D #
k A B D*
D*
k A D b C
x* D*
AHD*
n* A D*
A
M
k A C
P d e f vg
fvg
Orig
P [jr. D*, Orig]
P defvg
(Orig??) fvg
P defvg
M
M
fvg
Latin Versions.
A. Old Latin (vt), saec. ii. (?)-iv.
Hebrews is omitted in the pseudo-Augustinian Speculum ( = m) and in
codex Boernerianus (=g), but included in —
d (Latin version of D)
f ( „ „ „ F)
r (codex Frisingensis : saec. vi., cont. 6 6 -7 5 7 8 -8 J op-ii 1 )
x? ( ,, Bodleianus : ,, ix., cont. i 1 — 1 1 23 )
Of these, r (corresponding to the text used by Augustine), with the few
quotations by Priscillian, represents the African, d (in the main) ' and x 3 the
European, type of the Old Latin text ; but f is predominantly vulgate, and
it is doubtful whether x 2 is really Old Latin. On the other hand, some
evidence for the Old Latin text is to be found occasionally in the following
MSS of—
B. Vulgate (vg), saec. iv.
am (Codex Amiatinus : saec. vii.-viii.)
fu/d( „
Fuldensis : ,, vi.)
cav ( „
tol ( „
Cavensis: „ ix.) \^ .,
Toltrtanus : ,, viii.)/ "
karl( „
Harleianus : ,, viii.)
c ( „
Colbertinus : ,, xii.)
Though c is an Old Latin text for the gospels, Hebrews and the rest of the
NT are vulgate; but He ic—ll in harl (which elsewhere has affinities with
am and fuld) is Old Latin, according to E. S. Buchanan ( The Epislles and
Apocalypse from the codex Harleianus [z= Wordsworth's Z 2 ], numbered Harl.
1772 in the British Museum Library, 1913). Both in harl and in e,
jj3-ss h^ a S p ec i a l capitulation; harl, which adds after "the prophets" in
1 The text of d corresponds to that of Lucifer of Cagliari (saec. iv. ), who
quotes 3 B -4 10 and 4 11 " 18 in his treatise De non conueniendo cum haereticis,
xi. (CSEL., vol. xiv.). According to Harnack (Studien zur Vul^ata des
Hebrderbriefs, 1920) it is d, not r, which underlies the vulgate (cp. J. Belser
on "die Vulgata u. der Griech. Text im Hebraerbrief," in 'Tkeolog. Quartal-
schrift, 1906, pp. 337-369)-
lxx THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
n32_" Ananias azarias misahel daniel helias helisaeus" — apparently points
to ii 3-32 having been at one time added to the original text which ran
(ii 2,33 ): "in hac enim testimonium habuerunt seniores qui per fidem
uicerunt regna," etc. Of these MSS, fuld represents an Italian text, cav and
tol a Spanish (the former with some admixture of Old Latin) ; am (whose text
is akin to fuld) is an Italian text, written in Great Britain. At an early
date the Latin versions were glossed, however (cp. on 7 1 n 28 ).
Egyptian Versions.
sah = Sahidic (saec. iii.-iv.) : The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern
Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131.
boh = Bohairic (saec. vi.-vii.) : The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern
Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-
555-
In sah Upbs 'Efipalovs comes very early in the Pauline canon, immediately
after Romans and Corinthians, even earlier than in the first (a.d. 400)
Syriac canon, whereas in boh it comes between the Pauline church letters and
the Pastorals. The latter seems to have been an early [i.e. a fourth century)
position in the Eastern or Alexandrian canon, to judge from Athanasius
(/■est. Ep. xxxix.); it reappears in the uncials K A B 1 W. Not long
afterwards, at the Synod of Carthage (can. 39), in a.d. 397, it is put be-
tween the Pauline and the Catholic epistles, which seems to have been the
African and even the (or, a) Roman order. This reflects at least a doubt
about its right to stand under Paul's name, whereas the order in sah and the
primitive Syriac canon reflects a deliberate assertion of its Pauline authorship.
The Alexandrian position is intermediate.
The data of the Egyptian versions are of special interest, as several of the
uncials have Egyptian affinities or an Egyptian origin, and as Upbs 'Efipalovs
was early studied at Alexandria. Thus, to cite only one or two, boh is right,
as against sah, e.g. in the rendering of irpbs in I 7 , in omitting SXw (3*), in
rendering viroo-rdcreus as "confidence" in 3 14 , in rendering iv Aavel8 (4 1 ) "in
David," in reading iradeiv in 9 26 , in rendering inrcWacm by "assurance"
(so syr arm) in II 1 , in taking Ka\otip.evos by itself ( 1 1 8 ), in keeping i\idaffdr)<rav
bef"re tirpleQi)<7a.v (ii 37 , though tireipdaOrjaav, = were tempted, is inferior to
sah's omission of any such term), in reading iirayyeXlav (II 89 , where sah
agrees with W in reading the plural), etc. On the other hand, and in a large
number of cases, sah is superior, e.g. at 2 n ("a merciful and faithful high-
priest"), at 3 6 (omitting p.ixpi reXovs pefialav), at 4 2 ((TvyKeKepacrixtvos), in
rendering Kpa.TCip.ev (4 14 ) "let us hold on to," in maintaining debs in 6 3 (for
"Lord "in boh), in omitting rod k6ttov in 6 10 , in reading iepeis (with W) in
7 28 , in reading vp.u>v in 9 14 , in rendering the last words of g w , in rendering
ap. . . . ivriXoylap in 1 2 s etc. Note also that sah agrees with arm in
inserting rrjs before iirayyeXlas in 4 1 , iicrrepov \tyet in io 16 - 17 , and ydp in 12 4 ,
while boh agrees with arm in adding elir-ei* in I 8 and ald>vios at 5 10 , and both
agree with arm in omitting ko,1 in I 6 . Both translate elcrepxbp-e&a. (4 s ) as a
luture, read dirtarlav in 4 8 (with vg and arm), omit Kara, rrjv t. M. in 7 21 ,
take dyiov as an adjective in 9 1 , read fxeXKdvriov in 9 11 , take fjs in 1 1 7 to mean
the ark, read tj arelpa in 1 1 11 , render 6yKov by " pride " in 12 1 , take inrop.tveTt
as imperative in 12 7 , and refer a\n"t)v to rSirov p-eravoias in I2 17 . Sah has
1 Yet in the archetype of the capitulation system in B Ylpbs ' Efipalovs must
have stood between Galatians and Ephesians, which "is the order given in
the Sahidic version of the 'Festal letter' of Athanasius" (Kirsopp Lake,
The Text of the NT, p. 53).
INTRODUCTION lxxj
some curious renderings, e.g. "hewed out" for ivciccuvleev (io 20 ), "the
place of the blood" for ai>aroy in I2 4 , and actually "hanging for them
another time " (avaoravpovvTas iavrois, 6 8 ) ; in general it is rather more vivid
and less literal, though boh reads " through the sea of Shari " [? slaughter] in
II 29 (sah is defective here), which is singular enough. On the other hand,
sah is more idiomatic. Thus it is in sah, not in boh, that vwdpol -yiv^adf (6 12 )
is rendered by "become daunted." The differences in a passage like I2 22 '*
are specially instructive. Sah takes irav-rryvpet with what follows, boh with
dyyiXuiv (" myriads of angels keeping festival") ; on the other hand, sah is
right as against boh's reading of irvev/iari (v. 23 ), while both render "God the
judge of all." In v. 26 both render iTrrryyekTai literally by "he promised,"
but boh translates irapaKan^dvovres in v. 28 as a future and x^P lv as "grace,"
whereas sah renders correctly in both cases. In ch. 1 3, sah seems to read
irepi<p4pe<rde in v. 9 (" be not tossed about "), inserts tpytp (as against boh), and
reads r]/uv in v. 21 ; in v. 22 it reads dv^xfcde ; in v. 23 , while boh renders
&iro\e\v/xtvot> by "released," sah renders "our brother Timotheos whom I
sent" (which confuses the sense of the passage altogether), and, unlike boh,
omits the final d/i^p. It is significant that sah 1 often tallies with r as against
d, e.g. in 6 18 (Iffxvpdv), 7 s7 (dpxt-epeU), though with d now and then against r,
as in II 6 (5^). It agrees with d and eth in reading irvevfia in I 7 , u>5 l/xdnov in
l a (as well as eXf£eis), and /cai rCbv rpdywv in 9 19 , but differs from d almost as
often, and from eth in reading rai/rj; in 3 10 , in omitting /card t. t. M. in 7 21 ,
etc. Unexpectedly a collation of sah and of eth yields no material for a clear
decision upon the relation of the texts they imply.
Svriac Versions.
For the Old Syriac, i.e. for the Syriac text of Hebrews prior to the vulgate
revision (Peshitta) of the fifth century, we possess even less material than in
the case of the Old Latin version. Hebrews belonged to the old Syrian canon,
but the primitive text can only be recovered approximately from (i) the
Armenian version, 2 which rests in part upon an Old Syriac basis — "readings
of the Armenian vulgate which differ from the ordinary Greek text, especially
if they are supported by the Peshitta, may be considered with some confidence
to have been derived from the lost Old Syriac" (F. C. Burkitt, EBi. 5004) ;
from (ii) the homilies of Aphraates (saec. iv), and from (iii) the Armenian
translation of Ephraem Syrus (saec. iv.), Commentarii in Epp. Pauli nimc
primum ex armenio in latinum sermonem a .patribus Mekitharistis translati
(Venice, 1893, pp. 200-242).
Hebrews is not extant in the Philoxenian version of a.d. 508, but the
Harklean revision of that text (a.d. 616-617) > s now accessible in complete
form, thanks to R. L. Bensly's edition ( The Harklean Version of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, 1 i 28 -^ 26 , now edited for the first time with Introduction and
Notes, Cambridge, 1889). The Peshitta version is now conveniently accessible
in the British and Foreign Bible Society's edition of The New Testament in
Syriac (1920).
1 It rarely goes its own way, hut the omission of any adjective at all with
irvedfxaTos in 9 14 is most remarkable ; so is the reading of vfids for rj/xdi in 13 6
(where M Orig have one of their characteristic agreements in omitting any
pronoun).
9 Mr. F. C. Conybeare kindly supplied me with a fresh collation.
lxxii
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
The early evidence for the use of IIpos 'E/?paiovs may be
chronologically tabulated as follows :
MSS.
Versions.
Writbks.
100-200
Clem. Rom.
2OO-30O
(Old Syriac)(01d Latin)
Clem. Alex.
Origen (-248)
Tertullian
3OO-4OO
p 13 p 18
Eusebius (-340)
Basil (-379)
Lucifer (-371)
B
Sahidic (?)
Cyril of Jerus. (-386)
Apollinaris (-392)
Priscillian (-385)
Ambrose (397)
N(?)
vulgate (370-383)
Chrysostom (-407)
Theodore of Mopsuestia
Jerome (-420)
4OO-SOO
W(?)
peshitta (411-435)
Cyril of Alex. (-444)
Theodoret (-458)
Augustine (-430)
AC
Armenian
048
5OO-60O
D d
fuld
H r
Etbiopic
Fulgentius
60O-7OO
harklean (616-617)
7OO-80O
am
* tol
Bohairic (?)
80O-90O
KL
M N f
P cav
Sedulius Scotus
9OO-IOOO
e(?)
0142
KABCHM*W (with p 13 ) would represent von Soden's
H text (approximating to WH's Neutral), his I text (correspond-
ing to WH's Western) being represented by K LP among the
uncials. But the difference between these in the Pauline corpus
are, he admits, less than in the case of the gospels. Bousset (in
Texte und Untersuchungen, xi. 4, pp. 45 f.) has shown that N c H
(which tend to agree with Origen's text) have affinities with
Euthalius ; they carry with them a number of cursives (including
33. 69. 88. 104. 424**. 436 and 1908), and enable us to recon
struct the archetype of codex Pamphili, i.e. the third century
recension of Origen's text. This group would therefore stand
midway between B K A C and the later K L (with majority of
cursives). But no exact grouping of the MSS is feasible. The
text has suffered early corruption at several places, e.g. 2 9 4 2 7 1
io 34 n 4 11 37 12 3 12 18 and 13 21 , though only the first of these
passages is of real, religious importance. But, apart from this,
the earliest MSS betray serious errors (cp. on 7 1 11 36 ), as
though the text had not been well preserved. Thus B, for all its
services (e.g. in 6 2 ), goes wrong repeatedly (e.g. i 8 i 8 4 12 ), as does
N* (e.g. i 6 om. airy, 4 9 6 9 9 17 roVe, io 32 euxapWas), and even
p 13 in 4 3 (eAevaovTcu), io 18 (d/Aapriais), II 1 (airou-TacTis), etc. The
errors of W are mainly linguistic, but it reads lf6vfj.-qa€w<i in 4 12 ,
7ri<7Tews in 6 11 etc. A test passage like 2 14 , where " blood and
flesh " naturally passed into the conventional " flesh and blood,"
INTRODUCTION lxxiii
shows the inferior reading supported not only by K and L,
as we might expect, but by / and tol, the peshitta and eth.
Similarly the wrong reading p-aprvpel in 7 17 brings out not only
K and L again but C D syr and a group of cursives, 256. 326.
436. 1 1 75. 1837. 2127. In 9 28 only arm inserts 7uo-t«i after
d7re/<Se;(Oju.€Voi9, but the similar homiletic gloss of Sia 7ricrr«a>s
before or after eis amnqptav turns up in A P syr 1 ^, and in 38. 69.
218. 256. 263. 330. 436. 440. 462. 823, 1245. 1288. 1611. 1837.
1898. 2005. In 9 14 the gloss kcu dA^ivw is supported also by
A P as well as by boh and one or two cursives like 104. To
take another instance, the gloss /cat 8a*piW (in io 28 ) has only
D* among the uncials, but it is an Old Latin reading, though r
does not support it, and it was read in the original text of the
harklean Syriac. Again, in n 12 , what B. Weiss calls the
" obvious emendation " iyew-qOrjaav is supported by N L p 13 *
and 1739, while in the same verse koi w<s 77 (/<a#cos, D) carries
with it K A D K L P p 13 , and D ^ omit 17 -n-apa to x«^os. When
M resumes at 12 20 it is generally in the company of X A D P
(as, e.g., i2 23 - 24 - 25 I3 5 - 9 - 20 ), once (12 27 om. r-qv) with D* arm,
once with D* (om. i$ovcriav, 13 10 ), once with KLP (kclkox- 13 3 )
against N A D*. Such phenomena render the problem of
ascertaining any traditional text of XIp6s 'Efipaiovs unusually
difficult. Even the data yielded by Clement of Alexandria 1
and the Latin and Egyptian versions do not as yet facilitate a
genealogical grouping of the extant MSS or a working hypo-
thesis as to the authorities in which a text free from Western
readings may be preserved.
(ii.)
The eighteen homilies by Origen (1253) are lost, though
Eusebius (cp. above, pp. xviii-xix) quotes two fragments on the
style and authorship. The 'A7roAoyid 'fipiyevous of Pamphilus
(partially extant in the Latin version of Rufinus) implies that
he also wrote a commentary on the epistle, bu* this is lost, and
the Syriac commentary of Ephraem Syrus (t373) is only extant
in the Latin version of an Armenian version (cp. above, p. lxxi).
We are fortunate, however, in possessing the first important ex-
position of IIp6s 'Eftpaiovs, viz. the homilies of Chrysostom (1407),
extant in the form of notes, posthumously published, which the
presbyter Constantine had taken down. Chrysostom's com-
ments are drawn upon by most of the subsequent expositors.
The foremost of these Greek exegetes is Theodore of Mopsuestia
(t428), who is the first to show any appreciation of historical
1 The original text in one place at least (cp. on II 4 ) can be restored by
the help of p 13 and Clement.
ixxiv THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
criticism (Theodori Mopsuesteni in NT Commentaria quae reperiri
potuerunt, collegit O. F. Fritzsche, 1847, PP- 160-172). The
exposition by his contemporary Theodoret of Cyrrhus (1458) is
based almost entirely upon Chrysostom and Theodore of
Mopsuestia {Theod. Comm. in omnes Pauli epistolas, ed. E. B.
Pusey, 1870, ii. 132-219). Similarly, the work of Oecumenius
of Tricca in Thrace (tenth century) contains large excerpts from
previous writers, including Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia,
and Photius (cp. Migne, PG. cxviii-cxix). Theophylact, arch-
bishop of Bulgaria (end of eleventh century), also draws upon
his predecessors (cp. Migne, PG. cxxiv), like Euthymius Ziga-
benus (beginning of twelfth century), a monk near Constanti-
nople. The latter's commentary on Hebrews is in the second
volume (pp. 341 f.) of his Commentarii (ed. N. Calogeras, Athens,
1887). In a happy hour, about the middle of the sixth century,
Cassiodorus (Migne's PL. Ixx. p. 1 1 20) employed a scholar called
Mutianus to translate Chrysostom's homilies into Latin. This
version started the homilies on a fresh career in the Western
church, and subsequent Latin expositions, e.g. by Sedulius
Scotus, W. Strabo, Alcuin, and Thomas of Aquinum, build on
this version and on the vulgate. An excellent account of
these commentaries is now published by Riggenbach in
Zahn's Forschungen zur Gesch. des NTlichen Kanons, vol. viii.
(1907).
Since F. Bleek's great edition (1828-1840) there has been a
continuous stream of commentaries ; special mention may be
made of those by Delitzsch (Eng. tr. 1867), Liinemann (1867,
1882), Moses Stuart 4 (i860), Alford 2 (1862), Reuss (i860, 1878),
Kurtz (1869), Hofmann (1873), A. B. Davidson (1882), F.
Rendall (1888), C. J. Vaughan (1890), B. Weiss (in Meyer,
1897), von Soden (1899), Westcott 3 (1903), Hollmann 2 (1907),
E. J. Goodspeed (1908), A. S. Peake {Century Bible, n.d.), M.
Dods (1910), E. C. Wickham (1910), A. Seeberg (1912),
Riggenbach (1913, 1922), Windisch (1913), and Nairne (1918).
Other works referred to, in this edition, 1 are as follows : —
Bengel (Bgl.) . J. A. Bengelii Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742).
Blass . . F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen
Griechisch : vierte, vb'llig neugearbeitete Auflage,
besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also,
Brief an die Bebrder, Text mit Angabe der
Rhythmen (1903).
1 Some references, in the textual notes, are the usual abbreviations, like
Amb. = Ambrose, Ath. or Athan. =Athanasius, Cosm. =Cosmas Indico-
pleustes (ed. E. O. Winstedt, Cambridge, 1909), Cyr. = Cyril of Alexandria,
Euth. =Euthalius, Hil. = Hilary, Lucif. = Lucifer, Sedul. = Sedulius Scotus,
Thdt. = Theodoret, Theod. = Theodore of Mopsuestia, etc.
INTRODUCTION
lxxv
BGU. .
BM. .
Diat.
EBi. .
Erasmus
ERE. .
Expositor
GCP. .
Helbing
IMA. .
Josephus
LXX .
Magn. .
Michel .
Mitteis- Wilcken
Moulton
OGIS. .
OP.
Pfleiderer
Philo .
Radermacher .
Rein. P.
Syll.
Aegyptische Urkunden (Griechisch Urkunden),
ed. Wilcken (1895).
Greek Papyri in the British Museum (1893 f.).
E. A. Abbott, Diatessarica.
The Encyclopaedia Biblica (1 899-1 903, ed. J. S.
Black and T. K. Cheyne).
Adnotationes (15 16), In epist. Pauli apostoli ad
Hebraeos paraphrasis ( 1 5 2 1 ).
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J.
Hastings).
The Expositor. Small superior numbers indicate
the series.
Grundziige und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde,
von L. Mitteis und U. Wilcken (191 2), I.
Band.
Grammatik der Septuaginta, Laut- und Wort-
lehre, von R. Helbing (1907).
Inscriptiones Graecae Insul. Maris Aegaei
(1895 f.).
Elavil Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem
Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber.
The Old Testament in Greek according to the
Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).
Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (ed.
Kern, 1900).
Recueil a? Inscriptions Grecques (ed. C. Michel,
1900).
Grundziige u. Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde
(1912).
J. H. Moulton's Grammar of New Testament
Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906).
Dittenberger's Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones
Selectae (1903-1905).
The Oxyrhytichus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell
and A. Hunt).
Primitive Christianity, vol. iii. (19 10) pp. 272-
299.
Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt
(recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).
Neutestamentliche Grammatik (191 1), in Lietz-
mann's Handbuch zum JVeuen Testament
(vol. i.).
Papyrus Grecs et Demotiques (Paris, 1905), ed.
Th. Reinach.
Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 2 (ed.VV. Ditten-
berger).
lxxvi THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Tebt. P. . . Tebtunis Papyri (ed. Grenfell and Hunt),
1902.
Thackeray . H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old
Testament in Greek (1909).
Weiss . . B. Weiss, "Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe"
(in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3),
also Der Hebrderbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher
Beleuchtung ( 1 9 1 o).
WH . . Westcott and Hort's New Testament in Greek
(1890, 1896).
Zahn . . Theodor Zahn's Einleitung in das NT, §§ 45-47.
COMMENTARY.
The final disclosure of God's mind and purpose has been made
in his Son, who is far superior to the angels ; beware then of
taking it casually and carelessly (i a -2 4 ) !
The epistle opens with a long sentence (vv. 1 - 4 ), the subject
being first (vv. 1 - 2 ) God, then (vv. 3 - 4 ) the Son of God ; rhetorically
and logically the sentence might have ended with eV (+ tw arm)
vtw, but the author proceeds to elaborate in a series of dependent
clauses the pre-eminence of the Son within the order of creation
and providence. The main thread on which these clauses about
the Son's relation to God and the world are strung is os . . .
iKafitcrev iv Sc^ta t??s /u.€yaXcucrvvr/s. It is in this (including the
purging of men from their sins by His sacrifice) that the final
disclosure of God's mind and purpose is made ; 6 #eos iXdXrjo-ev
■fjfjuv iv vl(2 . . . os . . • iK&6icrev kt\. But the cosmic signifi-
cance of the Son is first mentioned (v. 2 ) ; he is not created but
creative, under God. Here as in 2 10 the writer explicitly stresses
the vital connexion between redemption and creation ; the Son
who deals with the sins of men is the Son who is over the
universe. This is again the point in the insertion of (pipuv re to.
Trdvra kt\. before KaOaptcrpiov d/xapTLwv TroLr](rdp.evo<s. The object
of insisting that the Son is also the exact counterpart of God (os wv
kt\. 3a ), is to bring out the truth that he is not only God's organ
in creation, but essentially divine as a Son. In short, since the
object of the divine revelation (AaAetv) is fellowship between
God and men, it must culminate in One who can deal with sin,
as no prophet or succession of prophets could do ; the line of
revelation iv 7roo<£r/Tais has its climax ev vlw, in a Son whose
redeeming sacrifice was the real and effective manifestation of
God's mind for communion.
As it is necessary to break up this elaborate sentence for the
purpose of exposition, I print it not only in Greek but in the
stately Vulgate version, in order to exhibit at the very outset
the style and spirit of IIpos 'Ey3oatovs.
2 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 1, 2.
IIoXi'/uepcDs Kal iroXiirpbiruis ird\ai 6 Multifariam et multis modis olim
6ebs \a\7j<ras roh warpdciv iv rois Deus loquens patribus in prophetis
irpo(pT)Tai.s iir iax^- rov T & v yp-ep&v novissime diebus istis locutus est
tovtcov iXdXrjo-ev tjixIv iv vlip, 6v 26r)Ke nobis in filio, quern constituit
KXrjpovbixov vdvTwv, 6Y ov Kal iiroi^cre heredem universorum, per quern
toik aluivas' 8s wv diravyaaLia ttjs db^rjs fecit et saecula, qui cum sit
Kal x a P aKT VP r V* virocrrdaeuis avrov, splendor gloriae et figura substantiae
cpipwv re rd vavra rip prj/xari ttjs eius, portans quoque omnia verbo
SuvdfMus avrov, Kadapta/xbv rwv diiap- virtutis suae, purgationem pecca-
riwv iroLT]<rdp.ei>os itcdBurev iv 5e£i<} torum faciens, sedit ad dexteram
rrjs fieyaXwcrvvrji iv v^-qXoh, roaovrcp majestatis in excelsis, tanto melior
Kpeirruv ycvb/j.evos T&v dyyiXwv beep angelis effectus quanto differen-
5ia<popu>repov irap' avroiis K£KXrjpov6- tius prae illis nomen heredit-
fj.i]Kfv 6vo/j.a. avit.
1 Many were the forms and fashions in which God spoke of old to our
fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these days at the end he has spoken to us by a
Son — a Son whom he has appointed heir of the universe, as it was by him
that he created the world.
Greek prefaces and introductions of a rhetorical type were
fond of opening with tto\v<; in some form or other (e.g. Sirach
prol. ttoXXwv kol /xeyaXoiv kt\. ; Dion. Halic. de oratoribus antiquis,
iroWrjv x^P lv kt^-; an early instance being the third Philippic of
Demosthenes, ttoWwv, & dVopes 'AOrjvcuoi, \6ywv yiyvofxivw ktX.).
Here TroXu/Acpws Kal iroXuTpoirus is a sonorous hendiadys for
" variously," as Chrysostom was the first to point out (t6 yap
iroXvixzpus kcu 7roXvrpo7rws tovtco-ti Siacpopws). A similar turn of
expression occurs in 2 2 irapafido-is /ecu izapaKo-q. The writer does
not mean to exclude variety from the Christian revelation ; he
expressly mentions how rich and manysided it was, in 2 4 . Nor
does he suggest that the revelation iv 7rpo<p?/rais was inferior
because it was piecemeal and varied. There is a slight sugges-
tion of the unity and finality of the revelation e'v vlw, as compared
with the prolonged revelations made through the prophets, the
Son being far more than a prophet ; but there is a deeper
suggestion of the unity and continuity of revelation then and
now. IIoAu/Aepws »cai 7roAvTpo7rws really " signalises the variety
and fulness of the Old Testament word of God " (A. B. David-
son). On the other hand, Christ is God's last word to the world ;
revelation in him is complete, final and homogeneous.
Compare the comment of Eustathius on Odyssey, I 1 : iroXvrpbirus dveyvup-
Iffdrj wdfftv oh TjXOev eh yt>u>o~iv, firjdevbs dvayvcopt.crfj.ou avp.ireabvros iripco
dvayvcopicrntZ rb ffvvoXov &XXo)s yap rip leXepcdxip, iripus Si EvpVKXela, iripcos
rois SouXois, &\\ov Si Tpdirov rep Aaiprrj, Kal SXujs dvoiioica^ &irao~i. IloXvfxepuis,
according to Hesychius (= 7ro\wrx^5c<>s), differs from iro\vrp6iruii (Sia<popws,
ttoikIXws), and, strictly speaking, is the adverb of iroXvfxepris = manifold (Wis
7 22 , where Wisdom is called irvev/na /xovoyevis, iroXvixepis). But no such dis-
tinction is intended here.
In irdXcu (as Opposed to iir ia-\a.Tov twv rj/xipiov tovtw)
Qeo$ XciXrjcras, XaXeir, here as throughout the epistle, is prac-
I. 1, 3.] THE FATHERS AND THE PROPHETS 3
tically an equivalent for Xe'yctv (see Anz's Subsidia, pp. 309-310),
with a special reference to inspired and oracular utterances of
God or of divinely gifted men. This sense is as old as
Menander (6 vov% yap 1<ttiv 6 XaXija-oyv #eos, Kock's Comic.
Attic. Fragm. 70). 01 iraTepe; in contrast to rjp.eis means OT
believers in general (cp. Jn 6 58 7 22 ), whereas the more usual
NT sense of the term is "the patriarchs" (cp. Diat. 1949-1950,
2553*), i.e. Abraham, etc., though the term (3° 8 9 ) covers the
ancients down to Samuel or later (Mt 23 30 ). Our fathers or
ancestors (Wis 18 6 ) means the Hebrew worthies of the far
past to whom Christians as God's People, whether they had been
born Jews or not (1 Co io 1 01 Trarepcs 17/uuv), look back, as the
earlier Sirach did in his Trarepwv v/xvos (Sir 44 1 ~5o 23 ), or the pro-
phet in Zee I 5 (oi 7raTep€S ip.wv . . . xal oi irpocprJTai). For 01
7raT€pes = our fathers, cp. Prayer of Manasseh x (debs tw irarepwy)
and Wessely's Studien zur Paldographie und Papyruskunde, i. 64,
where boys are reckoned in a list o-vv tois -n-aTpdo-i. The inser-
tion of r]p.oiv (p 12 999. 1836 boh sah Clem. Alex., Chrys. Pris-
cillian) is a correct but superfluous gloss. As for iv tois Trpo^-
tcus, TrpocprJTaL is used here in a broader sense than in n 32 ; it
denotes the entire succession of those who spoke for God to the
People of old, both before and after Moses (Ac 3 22 7 3r ), who is
the supreme prophet, according to Philo {de ebriet. 21, de decalogo
33). Joshua is a prophet (Sir 46 1 ), so is David (Philo, de agric.
12). In Ps 105 15 the patriarchs, to whom revelations are made,
are both God's Trpocprjrai and xP LaT °^ Later on, the term was
extended, as in Lk 13 28 (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, kou irdvra<;
tous Trpocj^ras, cp. He 11 32 ), and still more in Mt 5 12 (tous
Trpo<pr)Ta<; tons 7rp6 v/xw). The reason why there is no contrast
between the Son and the prophets is probably because the
writer felt there was no danger of rivalry ; prophecy had ceased
by the time that the Son came ; the "prophet" belonged to a
bygone order of things, so that there was no need to argue
against any misconception of their function in relation to that of
the Son (Bar 85 1 " 3 "in former times our fathers had helpers,
righteous men and holy prophets . . . but now the righteous
have been gathered and the prophets have fallen asleep ").
As no further use is made of the contrast between Jesus and
the prophets (who are only again mentioned incidentally in n 32 ),
it was natural that dyye'Aois should be conjectured (S. Crellius,
Initium Ioannis Evangelii restitutum, p. 238, independently by
Spitta in Stud. u. Kritiken, 19 13, pp. 106-109) to have been the
original reading, instead of irpo<prjT ats. But " the word spoken
by angels" (2 2 ) does not refer to divine communications made
to the patriarchs ; nor can oi 7raTe'pes be identified with the
patriarchs, as Spitta contends (cf. U. Holzmeister in Zeitschrift
4 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 1, 2.
fiir kathol. Theologie, 191 3, pp. 805-830), and, even if it could,
trpo^rjfra.1% would be quite apposite (cp. Philo, de Abrah. 22).
Why the writer selects 7rpo<^rat? is not clear. But dv6pdiiroi<;
would have been an imperfect antithesis, since the Son was
human. Philo (de Monarch. 9 : ipp.r)veL<; yap clcriv 61 TrpocprJTaL
Oeov KaTa^pu)/ji€vov TOts iKtivuv opyavois irpbs hrjXuxriv gov av i6e\ijcrr])
views the prophets as interpreters of God in a sense that might
correspond to the strict meaning of iv, and even (Quaest. in Exod.
23 22 tov yap Aeyovros 6 Trpo<pr)T7]% ayyeAos nvpiov icrriv) applies
ayyeXos to the prophet. But iv here is a synonym for 81a.
(Chrys. opa? on /cat to iv Sia iartv), as in I S 28 s (dir€Kp[Qr) avrai
Kvptos iv tois ivvTrvioiS kcu iv tois S77A.01S fat iv tois TrpocprjTais).
In Test. Dan i 1 [ace. to the tenth cent. Paris MS 938] x
and in LXX of Nu 24 14 , Jer 23 20 [B : ^o- X arw, A Q*], 25 19 ( 49 39 )
[B : 6o- X a7w, A Q], 37 (30) 24 [A Q : eo- X a™v, B], Ezk 38 s (eV
60-^aTou trail'), Dn IO 14 [eo- X ara> ? eo-^arajv], Hos 3 s [Q], «r
cV^arou twv fj/xepiov appears, instead of the more common iir
io-xdriav tuJv rj/xepwv, as a rendering of the phrase D^O'n rvnnxa.
A similar variety of reading occurs here ; Origen, e.g., reads
ia-\a.TO)v without tovtiov (on La 4 20 ) and «r X aTou (fragm. on John
3 31 ), while ia-xdroiv is read by 044, a few minor cursives, d and
the Syriac version. The same idea is expressed in 1 P i 20 by
«7r' ccr X aToi> Ta ' v XP° V01V > but t ne tovtwv here is unique. The
messianic mission of Jesus falls at the close of these days, or, as
the writer says later (9 26 ), e7ri awreXeiq, twv alwvwv. These days
correspond to the present age (6 vvv alwv) ; the age (or world) to
come (6 piAAwv alu>v, 6 5 ) is to dawn at the second coming of
Christ (9 28 io 37 ). Meantime, the revelation of God iv vlw has
been made to the Christian church as God's People (eXaXr/o-cv
rjp.lv) ; the -^/xets does not mean simply the hearers of Jesus on
earth, for this would exclude the writer and his readers (2 3 ), and
cWaA-T/crev covers more than the earthly mission of Jesus. There
is no special reference in iXdXrja-ev to the teaching of Jesus ;
the writer is thinking of the revelation of God's redeeming pur-
pose in Christ as manifested (vv. 3 * 4 ) by the (resurrection and)
intercession in heaven which completed the sacrifice on the
cross. This is the final revelation, now experienced by Christians.
The saying of Jesus quoted by Epiphanius {Haer. xxiii. 5, xli. 3, lxvi 42),
6 XaXuJ* 1 iv roh irpcxprirais, iSou irapei/j.1, was an anti-gnostic logion based
partly on this passage and partly on Is 52 s i~yd) el/xi avrbs 6 \a\wv, napei/xi.
The author of Hebrews is not conscious of any polemic against the OT
revelation as inferior to and unworthy of the Christian God. He assumes
that it was the same God who spoke in both Testaments : " Sed in hac
diversitate unum tamen Deus nobis proponit : nequis putet Legem cum
Evangelio pugnare, vel alium esse huius quam illius authorem " (Calvin).
1 The Armenian reading tovtwv after ij/xepwv, instead of avrov, is incorrect,
and may even be a reminiscence of He I 1 ,
I. 1, 2.] THE SON AND THE UNIVERSE 5
In ov leTjKei' KXtipoyofAoy irdvToyv there is a parallel, perhaps
even an allusion, to the Synoptic parable : finally he sent his son
(Mt 2 1 27 ), or, as Mark (12 6 ) and Luke (20 13 ) explicitly declare,
his beloved son, though our author does not work out the sombre
thought of the parable. There, the son is the heir (oCto's ia-nv 6
K\r)pov6/j.o<;), though not of the universe. Here, the meaning of
ov iOrjuev K\y]pov6fxov wavruv is the same : he was " appointed "
heir, he was heir by God's appointment. It is the fact of this
position, not the time, that the writer has in mind, and we
cannot be sure that this "appointment" corresponds to the
elevation of v. 3 (eKd6«rev). Probably, in our modern phrase, it
describes a pre-temporal act, or rather a relationship which
belongs to the eternal order. The force of the aorist ZdrjKev is
best rendered by the English perfect, "has appointed"; no
definite time is necessarily intended.
" Nam ideo ille haeres, ut nos suis opibus ditet. Quin hoc elogio nunc
eum ornat Apostolus ut sciamus nos sine ipso bonorum omnium esse inopes "
(Calvin). The reflection of Sedulius Scotus (alii post patrem haeredes sunt,
hie autem vivente Patre haeres est) is pious but irrelevant, for KX-qpovo^tlv
in Hellenistic Greek had come to mean, like its equivalent "inherit" in
Elizabethan English, no more than "possess" or "obtain"; a kXtjpoi'^os
was a "possessor," with the double nuance of certainty and anticipation.
" Haeres" in Latin acquired the same sense; "pro haerede gerere est pro
domino gerere, veteres enim 'haeredes' pro 'dominis' appellabant"
(Justinian, Instit. ii. 19. 7).
In 81' ou (Gfiesbach conj. Sioti) ica! ciroiTjae tous aioWas the
ko.1 especially x suggests a correspondence between this and the
preceding statement ; what the Son was to possess was what he
had been instrumental in making. Tovs aiwvas here, though
never in Paul, is equivalent (EBi. 1147) to i-a 7ravra in v. 3
(implied in tt6.vtu,v above), i.e. the universe or world (n 3 ). The
functions assigned by Jewish speculation to media like the Logos
at creation are here claimed as the prerogative of the Son. This
passing allusion to the function of Christ in relation to the
universe probably originated, as in the case of Paul, in the re-
ligious conception of redemption. From the redeeming function
of Christ which extended to all men, it was natural to infer His
agency in relation to creation as part of his pre-existence. The
notion is that " the whole course of nature and grace must find
its explanation in God, not merely in an abstract divine
arbitrium, but in that which befits the divine nature" (W.
Robertson Smith), i.e. the thought behind 2 9f - is connected with
the thought behind i 1 ' 3 . This may be due to a theological re-
flection, but the tendency to emphasize the moral rather than
the metaphysical aspect, which is noticeable in IIpos 'E/3/Wovs as
1 An emphasis blurred by the tovs alwfas iirol-qaev of D b K L P hark)
Chrys. Theod. (Blass, von Sod.).
6 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 3, 4.
in the Fourth Gospel, and even in Paul, is consonant with Philo's
tendency to show the function of the Logos and the other inter-
mediate powers as religious rather than cosmical (cp. Brevier's
Les /dees Philos. et Religieuses de Philon cPAlexandrie, pp. 65 f.,
inf., 152, "il ne s'agit plus chez Philon d'un explication du
nionde mais du culte divin"; 174 f., "la thdse de Philon, qui
explique et produit la doctrine des intermediaires, n'est pas
l'impossibilite pour Dieu de produire le monde mais l'impossibilite'
pour Fame d'atteindre Dieu directement"). Yet Philo had
repeatedly claimed for his Logos, that it was the organ of
creation (e.g. de sacerdot. 5, Adyos 8' eortv e'u<uv 6cov, 81 ov
crvfxTra's 6 koct/hos i8rjfxiovpyeiTo), and this is what is here, as by
Paul, claimed for Christ. Only, it is a religious, not a cosmo-
logical, instinct that prompts the thought. The early Christian,
who believed in the lordship of Christ over the world, felt, as a
modern would put it, that the end must be implicit in the be-
ginning, that the aim and principle of the world must be essenti-
ally Christian. This is not elaborated in " Hebrews " any more
than in the Fourth Gospel (Jn i 3 ) ; the author elsewhere prefers
the simple monotheistic expression (2 10 n 3 ). But the idea is
consonant with his conception of the Son. " If pre-existence is
a legitimate way of expressing the absolute significance of Jesus,
then the mediation of creation through Christ is a legitimate
way of putting the conviction that in the last resort, and in spite
of appearances, the world in which we live is a Christian world,
our ally, not our adversary" (Denney in ERE. viii. 5i6f.).
3 He (5s &v) reflecting God's bright glory and stamped with Gods own
character, sustains the universe with his word of potver ; when he had
secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the
Majesty on high ; 4 and thus he is superior to (Kpelrruv) the angels, as he has
inherited a Name superior (SiCMpopdiTepov, 8 6 ) to theirs.
The unique relation of Christ to God is one of the unborrowed
truths of Christianity, but it is stated here in borrowed terms.
The writer is using metaphors which had been already applied in
Alexandrian theology to Wisdom and the Logos. Thus Wisdom
is an unalloyed emanation rrjs tov TravTOKpaTopos Sd£?;s, dvavyao-pa
. . . (pcuTos alSiov (Wis 7 25 - 2a ), and a7rai;yao-yu.a in the same sense
of "reflection" occurs in Philo, who describes the universe as
olov dyi'tov a.Travyaap.a, p.tp.rjp.a ap^iTVTrov (de plant. 1 2), the human
spirit as ti>7tov tivo. koX ^apaKTrjpa 0eias 8vvdp.€w<s (quod deter, pot.
ins. sol. 83), and similarly the Logos. x a P aKT VP ls "the exact
reproduction," as a statue of a person (OGIS. 363 60 \apaKTyjpa
p.op<pr)<; ip.rj<;) ; literally, the stamp or clear-cut impression made
by a seal, the very facsimile of the original. Tiie two terms
airavyaa-p-a and \apaKT-qp are therefore intended to bring out the
same idea.
I. 3.J THE FATHER AND THE SON 7
xiiroo-Taerts = the being or essence of God, which corresponds to his 5<5fa
(= character or nature) ; it is a philosophical rather than a religious term, in
this connexion, but enters the religious world in Wis l6 21 (t; /xev yap inrd-
araals ffov kt\. ). Its physical sense emerges in the contemporary de A/undo, 4,
tQiv iv atpi (pavTacrfj.drwv ra. ntv ian /car' tfj.<pa<riv ra 5e Kad' virdaratjiv. The
use of it as a term for the essence or substance of a human being is not un-
common in the LXX (e.g. Ps 39/ 139 16 ) ; cp. Schlatter's Der Glattbe im NT*
(1905), pp. 615 f . , where the linguistic data are arranged.
XapaKTi^p had already acquired a meaning corresponding to the modern
" character " (e.g. in Menander's proverb, dvdpbs x a P aKT VP ^ K X6yov yvojpi^erai,
Heauton Timoroumenos, 11). The idea of x«-P aKT Vp as replica is further illus-
trated by the Bereschith rabba, 52. 3 (on Gn 21 2 ) : " hence we learn that he
(Isaac) was the splendour of his (father's) face, as like as possible to him."
An early explanation of this conception is given by Lactantius (diuin.
instit. iv. 29), viz. that "the Father is as it were an overflowing fountain,
the Son like a stream flowing from it ; the Father like the sun, the Son as it
were a ray extended from the sun (radius ex sole porrectus). Since he is
faithful (cp. He 3 2 ) and dear to the most High Father, he is not separated
from him, any more than the stream is from the fountain or the ray from
the sun ; for the water of the fountain is in the stream, and the sun's light in
the ray." But our author is content to throw out his figurative expressions.
How the Son could express the character of God, is a problem which he does
not discuss ; it is felt by the author of the Fourth Gospel, who suggests the
moral and spiritual affinities that lie behind such a function of Jesus Christ,
by hinting that the Son on earth taught what he had heard from the Father
and lived out the life he had himself experienced and witnessed with the
unseen Father. This latter thought is present to the mind of Seneca in
Epp. 6 5, 6 , where he observes that " Cleanthes could never have exactly re-
produced Zeno, if he had simply listened to him ; he shared the life of Zeno,
he saw into his secret purposes" (vitae eius interfuit, secreta perspexit). The
author of Hebrews, like Paul in Col I 15 * 17 , contents himself with asserting
the vital community of nature between the Son and God, in virtue of which
((pipwv re) the Son holds his position in the universe.
In the next clause, fyepwv x re to, irdrra is not used in the sense
in which Sappho (fragm. 95, 7mvTa cpepwv) speaks of the evening
star " bringing all things home," the sheep to their fold and
children to their mother. The phrase means " upholding the
universe as it moves," bearing it and bearing it on. "Thou
bearest things on high and things below," Cain tells God in
Bereschith rabba, 23. 2, " but thou dost not bear my sins."
" Deus ille maximus potentissimusque ipse vehit omnia" (Seneca,
Epist. 3 1 10 ). The idea had been already applied by Philo to the
Logos (e.g. de migrat. Abrah. 6, 6 Xoyos ... 6 tw oXojv Kvfiep-
i'tjtt/s TTTjSaXtou^ct Ta (TvfxvavTa : de spec, legibus, i. 81, Xoyos 8 iarlv
etKwv 6eov, 6V ov crvfJLTras 6 koo"/xos i8r]fuovpyeiro : de plant. 8, Xoyos
Z\ 6 aiStos 6eov tou alwviov to o^ypwrarov /cat j3ef3ai.OTa.TOV epeio-fxa
tw oXoiv €o-Tt). So Chrysostom takes it : <p£pwv . . . tovt£o-ti,
KvftepvUiv, to. SiairLTTTovTa o-vyxpaTwv. It would certainly carry on
the thought of oV ou . . . alwvas, however, if (pipeiv here could
be taken in its regular Philonic sense of "bring into existence"
(e g. quis rer. div. haer. 7, 6 Ta p.y oVra (fiipwv kol to. vavTa ycviajv :
1 (pavepwv is, like a-rroXeiTcu in 4 9 , an error of B*.
8 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 3, 4.
de mutat. nom. 44, irdvTa cpe'pwv airovSaua 6 6(6%) ; this was the
interpretation of Gregory of Nyssa (MPG. xlvi. 265), and it would
give a better sense to "word of power" as the fiat of creative
authority. But the ordinary interpretation is not untenable.
In tu> prijAOTi tt}s 8i>vd|X£us avrov, the avrov (avrov ?) refers to the Son,
not as in the preceding clause and in n 3 to God. Hence perhaps its omission
by M 424** 1739 Origen.
With Kctdapio-fAoi' . . . ui|/T)Xot9 the writer at last touches what
is for him the central truth about the Son ; it is not the teaching
of Jesus that interests him, but what Jesus did for sin by his
sacrifice and exaltation. From this conception the main argu-
ment of the epistle flows. KaOapia/xov twv apaprcwv is a Septua-
gint expression (e.g. Job 7 21 iroir]<rw . . . Ka6apicrp.bv ("Uy) rrjs
d/taprias p-ov), though this application of k. to sins is much more
rare than that either to persons (Lv 15 13 ) or places (1 Ch 23 26 ,
2 Mac IO 5 ). In 2 Pi 9 (tov Ka.6api.crp.ov tujv rrd\ai avrov apapriwv)
it is filled out with the possessive pronoun, which is supplied here
by some (e.g. 17/AuJv D c K L harkl sah arm Athan. Chrys., vpwv X c ).
Grammatically it = (a) purgation of sins, as Ka6apt(io may be used
of the "removal" of a disease (Mt 8 3 - 4 ), or = (£)our cleansing
from sins (9 14 Ka6apiel ttjv crvveiSyjcnv rjpu>v drrb ve/cpcov Ipycov).
Before Ka6apio-p.6v the words 8Y kavrov (airov) are inserted by
DHKLM 256 d harkl sah boh eth Orig. Athan. Aug. etc.
At* £avroO= ipse, as eavTa! = sua sponte. 'EKa#io-€v iv Sc^ia is a
reminiscence of a favourite psalm (no 1 ) of the writer, though he
avoids its Ik 8e$iwv. It denotes entrance into a position of divine
authority. " Sedere ad Patris dexteram nihil aliud est quam
gubernare vice Patris " (Calvin). 'Ev £1/^7X019, a phrase used by
no other NT writer, is a reminiscence of the Greek psalter and
equivalent to lv wi/u'otois : grammatically it goes with li<a6io-ev.
(The divine attribute of p-eyaXiDo-vvrj is for the first time employed
as a periphrasis for the divine Majesty.) This enthronement
exhibits (v. 4 ) the superiority of the Son to the angels. "Ovopa is
emphatic by its position at the close of the sentence ; it carries
the general Oriental sense of " rank " or " dignity." The
precise nature of this dignity is described as that of sonship (v. 5 ),
but the conception widens in the following passage (vv. 6f -), and
it is needless to identify 6vop.a outright with uids, though vies
brings out its primary meaning. In too-outw Kpei-rrw^ y €l 'OH- €l ' s
(going closely with iKadiaev) tw (accidentally omitted by B and
Clem. Rom.) dyyikuv (emphatic by position) imp' au-rous kckXt]-
po^op.rjKei' o^op.a, the relative use of octos in NT Greek is con-
fined to Mk 7 36 , but too-ovtos . . . ocros is a common Philonic
expression. Kpa'rrw (for which Clement of Rome in 36 s sub-
stitutes the synonymous /xet^wv) is an indefinite term = " superior.' 1
I. 4, 5.] TRE SON AND THE ANGELS 9
Unlike Paul, the writer here and elsewhere is fond of using irapa
after a comparative.
KpeiTTuv in this sense occurs in the contemporary (?) Aristotelian treatise
de A/undo, 391a (5id rd adiaroi. tQiv Kpurrdvwv elvai), where to. KpeiTTbvo.
means the nobler Universe.
The sudden transition to a comparison between the Son and
the angels implies that something is before the writer's mind.
Were his readers, like the Colossians to whom Paul wrote, in
danger of an undue deference to angels in their religion, a
deference which threatened to impair their estimate of Christ ?
Or is he developing his argument in the light of some contem-
porary belief about angels and revelation? Probably the latter,
though this does not emerge till 2 2 . Meanwhile, seven Biblical
proofs (cp. W. Robertson Smith, Expositor'*, i. pp. 5 f.) of v. 4 are
adduced ; the two in v. 5 specially explain the StacfiopwTepor
ovojxa, while the five in vv. 6 - 14 describe the meaning and force of
K/aeirrwv tui' dyye'Awv. The first two are :
B For to what angel did God ever say,
" Thou art my son,
to-day have I become thy father * f
Or again,
" / will be a father to him,
and he shall be a son to me " ?
The first quotation is from the 2nd Psalm (v. 7 ), read as a
messianic prediction — which may have been its original meaning,
and certainly was the meaning attached to it by the early Chris-
tians, if not already by some circles of Judaism : 1
v\6s fJLOV €1 (TV,
iyw <ryjfj.epov ycyevvrjKa. 0"e.
Did the author take (rr)\xepov here, as perhaps in 3 7f -, though not
in 13 8 , in (a) a mystical sense, or (d) with a reference to some
special phase in the history of Christ? (a) tallies with Philo's
usage : (rqp.epov 8' ecrriv 6 aTreparos ko.1 aSu^LT-qro 1 ; alwv ... to
di/reuSc? ovop.a aiwvos (de fuga, 1 1, on Dt 4 4 ), ews tj/s crrjp.(pov
i^/iepas, TovridTLv aei' o yap alwv a7ras tw arjpiepov trapapLeT peirai
(leg. at/eg. iii. 8 on Gn 35 4 ). (6) might allude either to the bap-
tism or to the resurrection of Christ in primitive Christian usage ;
the latter would be more congenial to our author, if it were
assumed that he had any special incident in mind. But he
simply quotes the text for the purpose of bringing out the title of
Son as applied to Christ. When we ask what he meant by
crr/p-epov, we are asking a question which was not present to his
mind, unless, indeed, " the idea of a bright radiance streaming
forth from God's glory " (v. 3 ) pointed in the direction of (a), as
1 See G. H. Box, The Ezra- Apocalypse, pp. lvi, lvii.
IO THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 5, 6.
Robertson Smith thought. But the second line of the verse is
merely quoted to fill out the first, which is the pivot of the proof:
vios /xov €* av. Sons of God is not unknown as a title for angels
in the Hebrew Old Testament (see EBi. 4691). "Sometimes
Moses calls the angels sons of God," Philo observes {Quaest. in
Gen. 6 4 — as being bodiless spirits). But the LXX is careful to
translate : " sons of Elohim " by ayycAoi dtov {e.g. in Gn 6 2, 4 ,
Job i 6 2 1 38 7 ), except in Ps 29 1 and 89 7 , where sons of God are
intended by the translator to denote human beings ; and no indi-
vidual angel is ever called mos. 1 As the author of Ilpd? 'E/?paiovs
and his readers knew only the Greek Bible, the proof holds good.
The second quotation is from 2 S 7 14 :
'Eyu> ecro/xai avrw eis iraripa,
kol ttvro? Icrrai fx.01 els vlov,
a promise cited more exactly than in 2 Co 6 18 and Rev 21 7 , but
with equal indifference to its original setting. Paul and the
prophet John apply it to the relationship between God and
Christians ; our author prefers to treat it as messianic. Indeed
he only alludes twice, in OT quotations, to God as the Father
of Christians (see Introd. p. xxxv).
The third quotation (v. 6 ) clinches this proof of Christ's unique
authority and opens up the sense in which he is KpuTrwv tw
dyye'Awi' :
and further, when introducing the Firstborn into the world, he says,
" Let all God's angels worship him"
In oTae he ttoKiv elo-aydyr\ the term 77-dAiv, rhetorically trans-
ferred, answers to the 7rJ/W of v. 5 ; it is not to be taken with
eio-ayay]7 = " reintroduce," as if the first "introduction" of the
Son had been referred to in v. 2f \ A good parallel for this usage
occurs in Philo (leg. alleg. iii. 9 : 6 8e irdXiv d-n-oStSpdaKwv 6ehv
tov fj.lv ovSevos cunov (prjalv elvai, where 7raAiv goes with <^?;o-tV).
Ettrayeiv might refer to birth, 2 as, e.g., in Epictetus (iv. 1. 104,
oi>xi e/ceti'ds (re eicr^yayev) and pseudo-Musonius, ep. 90 (Her-
cher's Epist. Graeci, 401 f. : ov t£kvol ixovov eis to yeVos aAAa /cat
ToiaSe reKva £to-»;yaycs), or simply to "introduction" (cp. Mitteis-
Wilcken, i. 2. 141 (1 IO B.C.), eicra^w tov ifxavTov vlov eis ti]v uvvohov).
Linguistically either the incarnation or the second advent might
be intended ; but neither the tense of do-aydyr) (unless it be
taken strictly as futuristic = ubi introduxerit) nor the proximity of
1 It is only Theodotion who ventures in Dan 3-' ,i,2) to retain the literal
son, since from his christological point of view it could not be misunderstood
in this connexion.
2 Cp. M. Aurelius, v. I, voieiv &v ZveKtv yifova ko.1 uiv x°-P lv vpo^yinai d%
rbv k6<t/j.ov.
1.6.] THE SON AND THE ANGELS II
iraXiv is decisive in favour of the latter (oVav tlaaydyy might,
by a well-known Greek idiom, be equivalent to "when he speaks
of introducing, or, describes the introduction of" — Valckenaer,
etc.). IIpwTOTo/cos is Firstborn in the sense of superior. The
suggestion of Christ being higher than angels is also present in
the context of the term as used by Paul (Col i 15 - 16 ), but it is
nowhere else used absolutely in the NT, and the writer here
ignores any inference that might be drawn from it to an inferior
sonship of angels. Its equivalent (cp. the v. II. in Sir 36 17 ) Trpwro-
yovos is applied by Philo to the Logos. Here it means that
Christ was Son in a pre-eminent sense ; the idea of priority
passes into that of superiority. A ttputotokos vlos had a relation-
ship of likeness and nearness to God which was unrivalled. As
the context indicates, the term brings out the pre-eminent honour
and the unique relationship to God enjoyed by the Son among
the heavenly host.
The notion of worship being due only to a senior reappears in the Vila
Adae et Evae (14), where the devil declines to worship Adam : " I have no
need to worship Adam ... I will not worship an inferior being who is my
junior. I am his senior in the Creation ; before he was made, I was already
made; it is his duty to worship me." In the Ascensio Isaiae (ll 23f- ) the
angels humbly worship Christ as he ascends through the heavens where they
live ; here the adoration is claimed for him as he enters 77 oikov/x{v7].
The line icat TrpocrKuvrja-dTacrcn' ciutw irdrrcs ayyeXoi 0eoo comes
from a LXX addition to the Hebrew text of the Song of Moses
in Dt 32 43 , calling upon all angels to pay homage to Yahweh.
But the LXX text 1 actually reads viol Oeov, not ayyeAoi 6eov
(into which F corrects it) ! Our author probably changed it into
ayyeXoi deov, recollecting the similar phrase in Ps 97"" (irpoo-Kv-
vrjaaTe aura) 7rdvres 01 iyyeXoi airov), 2 unless, indeed, the change
had been already made. The fact that Justin Martyr {Dial. 130)
quotes the LXX gloss with ayyeAoi, is an indication that this may
have been the text current among the primitive Christians.
The last four (vv. 7-14 ) quotations carry on the idea of the
Son's superiority to the angels :
7 While he says of angels (7rp6s = with reference to),
" Who makes his angels into winds,
his servants into flames of fire"
8 he says of the Son,
" God is thy throne for ever and ever,
and thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity :
9 thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness,
therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee
with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades " —
10 and,
" Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, O Lord,
1 As the song appears in A, at the close of the psalter, the reading is
dyyeXoi (viol, R).
2 Which acquired a messianic application (see Diat. 3134).
12 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [1.7.
and the heavens are the work of thy hands:
11 they will perish, but thou remainest,
they will all be worn out like a garment,
12 thou wilt roll them up like a mantle, and they will be changed,
but thou art the same,
and thy years never fail."
In V. 7 the quotation (6 ttoluv tov<s ayyeXovs airov irvev/xaTa\
kol tous Aeiroupyous avrov 7rupos cpXoya) only differs from the LXX
by the substitution of irvpbs (pXoya 1 for irvp <pXeyov (B : 7rvpos
cpXeya A a ). The singular in <p\6ya and perhaps the recollection
that Trvevfxa elsewhere in NT = " wind" only in the singular,
led to the change of 7rveu/i.a.Ta into 7rve9/xa (D i. 326. 424**. 1912.
1245. 2005 d sah eth Orig.). The author is taking the LXX
translation or mistranslation of Ps 104 4 (6 ttolwv ktX., a nomina-
tive without a verb, as in 1 Co 3 19 ) to mean that God can reduce
angels to the elemental forces of wind and fire, so unstable is
their nature, whereas the person and authority of the Son are
above all change and decay. The meaning might also be that
God makes angels out of wind and fire ; 2 but this is less apt.
Our author takes the same view as the author of 4 Esdras, who
(8 21 ) writes :
" Before whom the heavenly host stands in terror,
and at thy word change to wind and fire."
Rabbinic traditions corroborate this interpretation ; e.g. " every
day ministering angels are created from the fiery stream, and
they utter a song and perish " (Chagiga, ed. Streane, p. 76), and
the confession of the angel to Manoah in Yalkut Shimeoni, ii.
11. 3: " God changes us every hour . . . sometimes he makes
us fire, at other times wind."
The interest of rabbinic mysticism in the nature of angels is illustrated by
the second century dialogue between Hadrian, that " curiositatum omnium
explorator," and R. Joshua ben Chananja (cp. W. Bacher, Agada der
Tannailen 2 , i. 171-172). The emperor asks the rabbi what becomes of the
angels whom God creates daily to sing His praise ; the rabbi answers that
they return to the stream of fire which flows eternally from the sweat shed
by the Beasts supporting the divine throne or chariot (referring to the vision
of Ezekiel and the " fiery stream " of Dn 7 10 ). From this stream of fire the
angels issue, and to it they return. Aeirovpyovs of angels as in Ps 103 21
(Xeirovpyol avrov, iroiovvres rb di\7]fia avrov).
The fifth (vv. 8 - 9 ) quotation is from Ps 45 7 - 8 — a Hebrew
epithalamium for some royal personage or national hero, which
our author characteristically regards as messianic.
1 Aquila has wvp \d(3pov, Symm. trvpLv-qv (p\6ya.
2 As in Apoc. Bar. 2I 6 (" the holy creatures which thou didst make from
the beginning out of flame and fire") and 48 s (" Thou givest commandment
to the flames and they change into spirits '').
I. 8, 9.] THE SON AND THE ANGELS 1 3
6 6p6vo% crov 6 6eos ei9 tov alwva tov aiwvos,
Kal l pa/3So9 tt)s tv9vTr)TO<; r) pa/5Sos tt/9 /JacrtAeias crov. 2
rjydnrjcras biKaiocrvvrjv Kal e/xtcrr^cras dro/xiav"
8ta TOVTO €\pLCT€ <T€ O #£09, 6 #£09 CTOV,
lAaioi' dyaAAiacrcws 7rapa 3 tov9 /^£to^ov9 crov.
The quotation inserts t^9 before cvOvTrjTos, follows A in pre-
ferring tov alwva tov aia>vo9 (tov aiwvo9 om. B 33) to aiiova aiwvos
(B), but prefers 4 B's avofxiav (cp. 2 Co 6 14 ) to A's dcufuav, and
agrees with both in prefixing 17 to the second (D K L P Cyr. Cosm.
Dam.) instead of to the first (NABM, etc.) f>d/38os. The psalm
is not quoted elsewhere in NT (apart from a possible remini-
scence of 45 5 - 6 in Rev 6 2 ), and rarely cited in primitive Christian
literature, although the messianic reference reappears in Irenaeus
(iv. 34. 11, quoting v. 2 ). '0 8e6s (sc lariv rather than Ictto)) may
be (a) nominative (subject or predicate). This interpretation
(" God is thy throne," or, " thy throne is God "), which was
probably responsible for the change of crov after /foo-iAetas into
avrov (N B), has been advocated, e.g., by Grotius, Ewald
("thy throne is divine"), WH ("founded on God, the im-
movable Rock"), and Wickham ("represents God"). Tyndale's
rendering is, " God thy seat shall be." Those who find this
interpretation harsh prefer to (b) take 6 c^eo'9 as a vocative, which
grammatically is possible ( = u» 6ee, cp. io 7 and Ps 3 8 138 17 etc.) ;
" Thy throne, O God (or, O divine One), is for ever and ever."
This (so sah vg, etc.) yields an excellent sense, and may well
explain the attractiveness of the text for a writer who wished to
bring out the divine significance of Christ ; 6 6e6<; appealed to
him like Kvpie in the first line of the next quotation. The sense
would be clear if 6 6e6<s were omitted altogether, as its Hebrew
equivalent ought to be in the original ; but the LXX text as it
stands was the text before our author, and the problem is
to decide which interpretation he followed, (b) involves the
direct application of 6 (9eos to the Son, which, in a poetical quota-
tion, is not perhaps improbable (see Jn i 18 20 28 ) ; in v. 9 it may
involve the repetition of 6 0eo's (om. by Irenaeus, Apost. Preaching,
47 — accidentally ?) as vocative, and does involve the rendering
of 6 0eo'9 o-ov as the God of the God already mentioned. The
point of the citation lies in its opening and closing words : (i)
the Son has a royal and lasting authority (as 6 0eo9?), in contrast
1 The addition of this kclL is not to mark a fresh quotation (as in v. 10 ), but
simply to introduce the parallel line (as in v. 10 Kal Zpya. kt\.).
2 Cp. Ps IIO 2 paj35oi> 8vva.fj.ews aov (om. n) ^airoureXe'L Kvpios.
3 For irapd with accus. in this sense, cp. above, v. 4 , and Is 53 s drifiov Kal
iicKiirbv Trapa rovs vioiis tQiv avdpunrwv.
4 avofilav, B D (A* dvo/xias) M P lat harkl Ath. Eus., dSiKiav N A 33 38.
218. 226. 919 Iren. Cosm.
14 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 9-12.
to the angels, and (ii) he is anointed (cxpicrc 1 = 6 XptVros) more
highly than his companions — an Oriental metaphor referring
here, as in Is 6i 3 etc., not to coronation but to bliss. If the
writer of Hebrews has anything specially in mind, it is angels
(i2 23 ) rather than human beings (3 14 ) as /Aerosol of the royal
Prince, whose superior and supreme position is one of intense
joy, based on a moral activity (as in 12 2 , where the passive side
of the moral effort is emphasized).
The sixth (vv. 10 " 12 ) quotation is from Ps 102 26 " 28 which in A
runs thus :
KaT dp^as 2 (TV, Kvpie, 3 ttjv yrjv e#eyu.€/\.iw<ras,
koll epya t£>v ^eipwv aov euriv ol ovpavoi'
avroii 4 aTToXovvrai, crv Se Sia/xeVeis,
/ecu 7rttvr€? <I>s IfxaTiov iraXaniiBrjcrovTai,
kolI wcrci TrepifioXaiov cAt^cts avrovs Kal aWayrjcrovTai'
aol Se 6 auros et, kcu to. Ittj crov ovk e/<Aa't//ouo-iv.
The author, for purposes of emphasis (as in 2 13 ), has thrown
crv to the beginning of the sentence, and in the last line he has
reverted to the more natural crv (B). In the text of the epistle
there are only two uncertain readings, for the proposed change
of SiayueVcis into the future Sia/xevds (vg. permanebis) does not
really affect the sense, and D*'s d>s for wcreC is a merely stylistic
alteration. In 12a two small points of textual uncertainty emerge.
(a) Z\L£eis (A B D c K L P M fu Syr arm sah boh eth Orig. Chrys.)
has been altered into dAAd^ci? (N* D* 327. 919 vt Tert. Ath.).
The same variant occurs in LXX, where dAAd^eis is read by N
for eAt^eis, which may have crept into the text from Is 34*, but is
more likely to have been altered into dAAd^eis in view of dAAay?;-
crovrai (eAiy^arovrat, arm), (b) wg Iji.aTioi' (N A B D* I 739 vt arm
eth) after avrovs is omitted by D c M vg syr sah boh Chrys. Ath.
Cyril Alex. Probably the words are due to homoioteleuton. If
retained, a comma needs to be placed after them (so Zimmer.) ;
they thus go with the preceding phrase, although one early ren-
dering (D d) runs : " (and) like a garment they will be changed."
The psalm is taken as a messianic oracle (see Bacon in Zeit-
schrift fur die neutest. Wissenschaft, 1902, 280-285), which the
Greek version implied, or at any rate suggested ; it contained
welcome indications of the Son in his creative function and also
of his destined triumph. The poetical suggestion of the sky as
a mantle of the deity occurs in Philo, who writes (de fuga, 20)
1 XP^ W > ln contrast to d\e/0oj, is exclusively metaphorical in NT (cp. Gray
in EBi. 173), although neither Latin nor English is able to preserve the
distinction.
2 A classical and Philonic equivalent for 4v dpxv (LXX again in Ps 1 19 15 ").
8 This title, which attracted our author, is an addition of the LXX.
4 Including ■>] 7J}, l>ut with special reference to ol oi'pacot.
I. 12-14.J THE SON AND THE ANGELS 15
that the Logos evpverat w<i ioSrjTa tov Koo-p.ov' yrjv yap «ai vSwp /ecu
depa kcu irvp koX ra Ik tovtw iirap.Tr Lcr^trai. But the quotation is
meant to bring out generally (i) the superiority of the Son as
creative (so v. 2 ) to the creation, and (ii) his permanence amid
the decay of nature; 1 the world wears out, 2 even the sky (12 28 )
is cast aside, and with it the heavenly lights, but the Son remains
("thou art thou," boh); nature is at his mercy, not he at
nature's. The close connexion of angels with the forces of
nature (v. 7 ) may have involved the thought that this transiency
affects angels as well, but our author does not suggest this.
The final biblical proof (v. 13 ) is taken from Ps no 1 , a psalm
in which later on the writer is to find rich messianic suggestion.
The quotation clinches the argument for the superiority of the Son
by recalling (v. 3 ) his unique divine commission and authority :
18 To what angel did he ever say,
" Sit at my right hand,
till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet" ?
14 Are not all angels merely spirits in the divine service, commissioned for
the benefit of those who are to inherit salvation ?
The Greek couplet —
kolOov £K Se£ia>v p,ov,
€OJS aV OW TOVS tyOpOVS (TOV V7tott68lov TWV 7To8o)V (TOV,
corresponds exactly to the LXX ; D* omits dv as in Ac 2 35 . The
martial metaphor is (cp. Introd. pp. xxxiii f.) one of the primitive
Christian expressions which survive in the writer's vocabulary
(cp. io 12 ).
The subordinate position of angels is now (v. 14 ) summed up ;
irai'Tes — all without distinction — are simply Xen-oupyiKd •nveu'p.aTa
(without any power of ruling) cis SiaKoviay dirooTeXXofAeya (com-
missioned, not acting on their own initiative). 3 According to the
Mechilta on Ex 14 13 , the Israelites, when crossing the Red Sea,
were shown "squadrons upon squadrons of ministering angels"
(rntfn "osta ty nrp-nn ni"p^n); cp. Heb. of Sir 43 26a , and
Dieterich's Mithrasliturgie, p. 6, line 14, 7) ap^r) tov Aei-rovpyowTos
dve/xou (see above, v. 7 ). Philo speaks of ayyeAoc XeiTovpyoi (de
Virtutibus, 74), of tovs vtvoZiaKovovi avTov twv Swap-cuv ayye\ov$ (de
templo, 1), and in de plantatione, 4: Mwcnys Be 6v6p.aTt eiOvfioXu
^pw/xevos dyye'Aous 7rpocrayop€V€t, 7rpecr/3£vop.evas *ai StayyeAAovVas
1 A pre-Christian Upanishad (Sacred Books of East, xv. 266) cries : "Only
when men shall roll up the sky like a hide, will there be an end of misery,
unless God has first been known."
2 Tra\aioua9ai is a common word with Ifiariov, and the wearing-out of
clothes is a favourite metaphor for men (Is 50 9 , Sir 14 17 ) as well as for nature
(Is 5 1 6 ). IlepijSoWoj' is any covering for the body ; not simply a veil (1 Co
II 16 ), but a generic term (cp. Ps IO4 6 fi/3w<ros ws 1/j.o.tiov to TrepiJ36\aiov airrov).
8 B reads diaKOvlas, as in S 9 rj/j-epacs for i}fj.4pq..
16 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [I. 14.
to. T€ irapa. tou iiye/xoVos rots utttikoois ayaOa. kul t<2 /Jao-tXet wv etcriv
ot vwrjKooi xpeioi. "Angels of the (divine) ministry" was a com-
mon rabbinic term, and the writer concludes here that the angels
serve God, not, as Philo loved to argue, in the order of nature,
but in promoting the interests of God's people ; this is the main
object of their existence. He ignores the Jewish doctrine voiced
in Test. Levi 3 5 , that in (the sixth ?) heaven the angels of the
Presence (ot AeiToupyowrcs koX i£L\a<TKop.evoi 77730s Kvpiov iwl 7racrais
rats dyvotous twv SikcuW) sacrifice and intercede for the saints,
just as in n 40 -:^ 1 he ignores the companion doctrine that the
departed saints interceded for the living. Later Christian specu-
lation revived the Jewish doctrine of angels interceding for men
and mediating their prayers, but our author stands deliberately
apart from this. Heaven has its myriads of angels (12 23 ), but
the entire relation of men to God depends upon Christ. Angels
are simply servants (Acu-oupyoi, v. 7 ) of God's saving purpose for
mankind ; how these "angels and ministers of grace" further it,
the writer never explains. He would not have gone as far as
Philo, at any rate (ayy«Aoi . . . [epai kcu deiai <puVa<r, vwoSiaKovoi
kclI virap)(OL rov irpwrov 8eov, oV u>v ota irpeo-fSevrHyv ocra av OtXrjcrr)
t<3 ycvei 17/i.uv irpoaOtairLcrai SiayyeAAei, de Abrahamo, 23).
In Sid tous |j.e\\orras ic\i(]pokojieie <ru>TK]picu' (k\. ao)T. only here
in NT), it is remarkable that o-wTTjpta is mentioned for the first
time without any adjective or explanation. Evidently it had
already acquired a specific Christian meaning for the readers as
well as tor the writer ; no definition was required to differentiate
the Christian significance of the term from the current usage.
As crcoTr/pia involves the sacrificial work of Christ (who is never
called cruiT-qp), it cannot be applied to the pre-Christian period
of revelation. Indeed in our epistle aoyT-qpia is invariably eschato-
logical. The outlook in the messianic oracles already quoted is
one of expectation ; some future deliverance at the hands of
God or his messianic representative is anticipated. MeXWras
implies a divine purpose, as in 8 5 n 8 .
The phrase about tous u.e\\orras KXrjpokou.eu' o-arrrjpiay marks a
skilful transition to the deeper theme of the next passage, viz. the
relation of the Son to this o-uriqpio. (on 2 1 " 9 cp. W. Robertson Smith
in Expositor 2 , i. pp. 138 f.). But the transition is worked out in
a practical warning (2 1 " 4 ) to the readers, which not only explains
the underlying interest of the preceding biblical proofs, but leads
up effectively to the next aspect of truth which he has in mind :
1 We must therefore (81a tovto, in view of this pre-eminent authority of
the Son) pay closer attention to what we have heard, in case we drift away,
2 For if the divine word spoken by angels held good (iyivero /S^3cuor, proved
valid), if transgression and disobedience met with due (?v8ikov = adequate, not
arbitrary) punishment in every case, s how shall we (r/Aieis, emphatic) escape
II. 1.] ATTENDING TO CHRISTIANITY 17
the penalty 1 for neglecting (d/teXijo-ai'Tej, if we ignore : Mt 22 5 ) a salvation
which (iJTis, inasmuch as it) was originally proclaimed by the Lord himself (not
by mere angels) and guaranteed to us by those who heard him, 4 while God
corroborated their testimony with signs and wonders and a variety of miracu-
lous powers, distributing the holy Spirit as it pleased him (ai/Tou emphatic as
in Ro J*).
Apart from the accidental omission of v. 1 by M 1739, Origen, and of n
(M P) in v. 4 , with the variant irapappviop.cv (B° D c ) for irapapvQfj.ei', 2 the only
textual item of any moment, and it is a minor one, is the substitution of vw6 for
Sia in v. 3 by some cursives (69. 623. 1066. 1845), due either to the following
vtto, or to the dogmatic desire of emphasizing the initiative of 6 Kvpios. But
did here as in 8C ayyfKiov, meaning "by," is used to preserve the idea that
in \a\eiv the subject is God (I 1 ). The order of words (v. 1 ) del TreptoaoTepQs
irpoaix €LV ^/*Sl has been spoiled in K vg (irfpiaooTepuis 5«) and K L P (ijfias
irpofftxew).
As elsewhere in Hellenistic Greek {e.g. Jos. Apion. i. t, eVel
Se crvyyov% opw tuis vtto $vo-p.eveias vtto tlvwv elprjpLtvais irpoai)covTa<;
(3\aa<pr)fjLiat<; Kal Tots irepl tyjv ' ApxaioXoyiav V7r' i/xov yty pa p. ptvois
airuTTOVVTas ktX. ; Strabo, ii. I. 7, tois p.ev airio-Ttlv . . . eKiivr] Se
irpocr£)(ZLv), izpoaiytiv (sc. tov vow) is the opposite of airicrTtlv :
to "attend" is to believe and act upon what is heard. This is
implied even in Ac 8 6 and 16 14 (irpoo-e^eiv tols XaXovp.evois v-n-6
HavXov) where it is the attention of one who hears the gospel
for the first time ; here it is attention to a familiar message.
nepio-o-oTepws is almost in its elative sense of " with extreme
care " ; " all the more " would bring out its force here as in 13 19
Certainly there is no idea of demanding a closer attention to the
gospel than to the Law. c Hpds = we Christians (17/nv, x 1 ), you and
I, as in v. 3 . The to. aKovaBivTa (in tols aKouo-Geio-i) is the revela-
tion of the evayyeXiov (a term never used by our author), i.e.
what 6 0eo5 eAaA^o-ev rjp.lv Iv ulw, i 1 , and this is further defined
(in vv. 3 - 4 ) as consisting in the initial revelation made by Jesus on
earth and the transmission of this by divinely accredited envoys
to the writer and his readers (eis ??//as i/3ef3ai(L9rj). In the Ep.
Aristeas, 127, oral teaching is preferred to reading (to yap KaXws
t/rjv iv t<3 Ta vop.ip.a crvvT7]pu.v eivai - toOto Se iffLTeXelo-Oai Sia. rr}<;
d/cpoacr€a)S ttoAAw p.aXXov r) Sia. ttJs avayvuxrewy, and the evange-
lists of V. 4 include omvcs iXaXr/aav vp.lv tov Xoyov tov 6hov (13 7 ) ;
but while the news was oral, there is no particular emphasis as
that here. The author simply appeals for attentive obedience,
p-rj iroTe irapapua)|j.eK (2 aor. subj.), i.e. drift away from (literally,
" be carried past " and so lose) the o-ajTr/pia which we have
heard. Hapapeay in this sense goes back to Pr 3 21 vU, pr]
irapapvfjs, Trjprjcrov Se ip.-t]v (SovXrjv Kal Ivvoiav (see Clem. Paed. III.
1 €K<pfv^6p.e8a, without an object (Kplfia tov 9eov, Ro 2 3 ) as I2 25 , Sir 16 15 ,
1 Th 5 3 .
2 Arm apparently read v<TTtprio-wpi.ev, and P. Junius needlessly conjectured
xapaffvpCifxtv ("pervert them").
2
l8 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 2.
xi. 58, 8tb Kal onxrreAAeiv \prj ras yueaucas koct/xuus nal Trepi(T(piyyeiv
atSot awcppoii, /xrj Trapappvwcri tt}s dXry^cta?) ; indeed the writer
may have had the line of Proverbs in mind, as Chrys. suggested.
The verb may have lost its figurative meaning, and may have been simply
an equivalent for "going wrong," like " labi " in Latin (cp. Cicero, De
Oficiis, i. 6, "labiautem, errare . . . malum et turpe ducimus "). Anyhow
irpoa^x eLV niust not be taken in a nautical sense (=moor), in order to round
oft" the "drift away" of wapapiw, a term which carries a sombre significance
here ( = irapairlTTTeit>, 6 6 ) ; p.r)iroTe wapapvu>p:ev, tovt£itti fir) airo\u>[.ie$a, fir)
iK-rrtawixev (Chrysostom).
In vv. 2f> we have a characteristic (e.g. io 28 ' 31 ) argument a minori
ad mains ; if, as we know from our bible (the bible being the Greek
OT), every infringement of the Sinaitic legislation was strictly
punished — a legislation enacted by means of angels — how much
more serious will be the consequences of disregarding such a
(great, Tr]\u<avTr)) croiT-qpia as that originally proclaimed by the
Lord himself! The TyXiKavrrj is defined as (a) "directly in-
augurated by the Kvpios himself," and (b) transmitted to us
unimpaired by witnesses who had a rich, supernatural endow-
ment ; it is as if the writer said, " Do not imagine that the
revelation has been weakened, or that your distance from the
life of Jesus puts you in any inferior position ; the full power of
God's Spirit has been at work in the apostolic preaching to which
we owe our faith."
The reference in X670S is to the Mosaic code, not, as Schoettgen thought,
to such specific orders of angels as the admonitions to Lot and his wife.
Aoyos is used, not vo'/aos, in keeping with the emphasis upon
the divine Xakzlv in the context, and, instead of vo'/aos Mwo-e'cos
(io 28 ), 6 81 dyye\(j)v XaXrjOeU Aoyos is chosen for argumentative
reasons. Here as in Gal 3 19 and Ac 7 38 - 53 (iXdfSere rbv co'/tov cts
Surrayas dyyeA.wv) the function of angels in the revelation of the
Law at Sinai is assumed, but without any disparaging tone such
as is overheard in Paul's reference. The writer and his readers
shared the belief, which first appeared in Hellenistic Judaism,
that God employed angels at Sinai. Josephus (Ant. xv. 136,
■f]fj.£yv Se Ta /<dAAio"Ta twv Soy/AaTcuv kcu to. ocriwrara tmv ev tois
vofjiots 8l ayyiKwv 7rapd tov 0€ov fj.a86vT(av) * repeats this tradition,
but it went back to the LXX which altered Dt 33 s into a definite
proof of angelic co-operation (£k 8e£t.wv airov ayyeXoi [itr avrov)
and brought this out in Ps 68 18 . Rabbinic tradition elaborated
the idea. The writer, however, would not have claimed, like
Philo (de vita Mosis, 2 3 ), that the Mosaic legislation was (3e/3cn.a,
do-dAeura, valid and supreme as long as the world endured.
1 This is from a speech of Herod inciting the Jews to fight bravely. " In
such a speech," as Robertson Smith observed, "one does not introduce
doubtful points of theology." The tenet was firmly held.
II. 2, 3.] THE COMING OF CHRISTIANITY 19
riapdPaais ica! irapaKorj form one idea (see on I 1 ) ; as 7rapaKorj
(which is not a LXX term) denotes a disregard of orders or of
appeals (cp. Clem. Horn. X. 13, el i-rrl TrapaKorj Xoyuiv KpiVis yivcrai,
and the use of the verb in Mt 18 17 edv 8k TrapaKovcrr) avTwv ktX.,
or in LXX of Is 65 12 iXdXrjo-e xal TraprjKovcraTe), it represents the
negative aspect, Trapdf3a<ns the positive. MurGa-rroooo-ia is a
sonorous synonym (rare in this sombre sense of Ko'Aao-ts) for
[xiaOos or for the classical fu<r6o8ocria. Some of the facts which
the writer has in mind are mentioned in 3 17 and io 28 . The Law
proved no dead letter in the history of God's people ; it enforced
pains and penalties for disobedience.
In v. 3 dpxV XaPoGcra is a familiar Hellenistic phrase ; cp. e.g.
Philo in Quaest. in Exod. I2 2 (orav 01 twv (nrapTuiv Kapirol TeAcico-
6w(riv, 01 twv SiySpujv ycft'crecos o.pxi v XapLJ3dvovcriv), and de Vila
Mosis, I 14 (ttjv dp^v tov yevtatlai Xdfiov iv Alyvirrw). The
writer felt, as Plutarch did about Rome, Ta 'Poj/xaiW Trpdyp.aTa
ovk av bfravQa TrpovfSt] <Wd//€a>s, p.rj Otiav tlvol dpx^/i' Xa/3ovra xal
p.r)8kv /xe'ya /xt^Sc TrapaBo^ov eY/nxTa^. The modern mind wonders
how the writer could assume that the o-wnypia, as he conceives
it, was actually preached by Jesus on earth. But he was un-
conscious of any such difference. The Christian revelation was
made through the Jesus who had lived and suffered and ascended,
and the reference is not specifically to his teaching, but to his
personality and career, in which God's saving purpose came to
full expression. Oi dKou'crarrcs means those who heard Jesus
himself, the avroTrrai of Lk i 1 " 4 (cp. the shorter conclusion to
Mark's gospel : perd 8k TavTa /ecu auros 6 'Jrjfrovs . . . e£a7reo--
rciXtv St' uuto)v to lepbv xal dcpOaprov xi)pvyp.a tj}? alwvtov cruiTqpias).
If the Sinaitic Law lyivero /3e'/3aios, the Christian revelation was
also confirmed or guaranteed to us — els ^p.ds (1 P i 25 to prjp.a to
eiayyeXio~6kv €is vpas : Ac 2 22 'Ir)<rovv . . . dv8pa oltto tov 0eov
aTro8e8eLyp.€vov ek vp.5?) i^e^aiuQr]. It reached us, accurate and
trustworthy. No wonder, when we realize the channel along which
it flowed. It was authenticated by the double testimony of men l
who had actually heard Jesus, and of God who attested and
inspired them in their mission. luyemp.apTupeii' means " assent "
in Ep. Aristeas, 191, and "corroborate" in the de Mundo, 400a
(o-vviTnp.apTvpel 8k xal 6 yStos a7ras), as usual, but is here a
sonorous religious term for 0-vp.p.apTvpziv (Ro 8 16 ). " Coniunctio
o~vv . . . hunc habet sensum, nos in fide euangelii confirmari
symphonia quadam Dei et hominum" (Calvin).
1 In vwb tCov aKovaavTuv, vtt6 is used, as invariably throughout Ilpds
'E(3palovs, of persons, which is a proof of good Greek. "There is no more
certain test of the accuracy of individual Greek writers than their use of the
passives (or equivalent forms) with vird and a genitive. In the best writers this
genitive almost invariably denotes personal, or at least living objects" (W. J.
Hickie, on Andocides, De Mysteriis, § 14).
20 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 4.
arjfj.. , rep., Si'v. in the reverse order describe the miracles of Jesus in Ac
2 22 ; here they denote the miracles of the primitive evangelists as in 2 Co I2 12 .
Philo, speaking of the wonderful feats of Moses before the Pharaoh, declares
that signs and wonders are a plainer proof of what God commands than any
verbal injunction (tire 8t) tou deov rpavortpais x/"? tr A t< ^" &iro8ell-eo~i reus 5td
a-qfxeluv ko\ Teparwv ri ^ouXrjfia SeSr^XuiKdros, vit. Mos. i. 1 6).
As " God " (Oeov) is the subject of the clause, airov (for which
D actually reads 6eov) refers to him, and Trv€vp.aro<; d-y lov is the
genitive of the object after p-epic-pols (cp. 6 4 ). What is dis-
tributed is the Spirit, in a variety of endowments. To take
airov with 7rv€u/xaTo? and make the latter the genitive of the
subject, would tally with Paul's description of the Spirit Sicupovv
toYa e/azo~r<i> Ka#d>s ftovXerai (i Co I2 U ), but would fail to explain
what was distributed and would naturally require -rcS ^epicr/zw.
A fair parallel lies in Gal 3 5 6 €7rt^op^ya>v vp.lv to -rrvev/xa /cat
ivepyiLv Swdfxeis Iv v/j2v, where oWa/xeis also means " miraculous
powers" or "mighty deeds" (a Hellenistic sense, differing from
that of the LXX = " forces "). In Kcvrd ttjc ciutou Bi\r\aiv,
as perhaps even in 7 18 (cp. Blass, 284. 3 ; Abbott's Johannint
Grammar, 2558), the possessive auros is emphatic. OeXrjo-tv is
read by N ca R for Serjcriv in Ps 21 3 (cp. Ezk 28 23 p.rj 6e\rjo-ei
OeXrjo-w). It is not merely a vulgarism for 8(krjp.a. "©eA^/xa
n'est pas tfe'A^cris, volonte ; OiXrjjxa. designe le vouloir concentre"
sur un moment, sur un acte, l'ordre, le commandment " (Psichaii,
Essai sur le grec de la Septante, 1908, p. 17111.). The writer is
fond of Such forms {e.g. aOirrjO'L';, a^A^o-i?, au'crxis, u€Td#ems,
Trp6o-)<y<Ti<i). Naturally the phrase has a very different meaning
from the similar remark in Lucian, who makes Hesiod {Dis-
putatio cum Hesiode, 4) apologize for certain omissions in his
poetry, by pleading that the Muses who inspired him gave their
gifts as they pleased — at #eai Se to.% iavriov Swpeds 019 re av iOe\u>o-i.
The vital significance of the Son as the dpx^yds of this
" salvation " l by means of his sufferings on earth, is now devel-
oped (vv. 5 " 18 ). This unique element in the Son has been already
hinted (i 3 ), but the writer now proceeds to explain it as the core of
Christ's pre-eminence. The argument starts from the antithesis
between the Son and angels (v. 5 ) ; presently it passes beyond
this, and angels are merely mentioned casually in a parenthesis
(v. 16 ). The writer is now coming to the heart of his theme, how
and why the Son or Lord, of whom he has been speaking,
suffered, died, and rose. Vv. 5 " 9 are the prelude to vv. 10 " 18 . The
idea underlying the whole passage is this : AaXeiaOai Sid tou Kupiou
meant much more than AaAetcr^ai 81 dyyeAw, for the Christian
revelation of awrrjpia had involved a tragic and painful experi-
ence for the Son on earth as he purged sins away. His present
superiority to angels had been preceded by a period of mortal
•In Ak™ of Is 9 6 the messiah is called irar^p rod /jLtXXovTos atuvos.
II. 5-9.] THE SON AS SUPREME 21
experience on earth iv rats ^.epais rrj<; aapKos avrov. But this
sojourn was only for a time ; it was the vital presupposition of
his triumph ; it enabled him to die a death which invested him
with supreme power on behalf of his fellow-men ; and it taught
him sympathy (cp. Zimmer, in Studien und Kritiken, 1882,
pp. 413 f., on 2 1 " 5 , and in NTlichen Studien, i. pp. 20-129, on
2 6 " 18 ).
6 For the world to come, of which I (yj/meh of authorship) am speaking,
was not put under the control of angels (whatever may be the case with the
present world). 6 One writer, as tve know, has affirmed,
" What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
or the son of man, that thou carest for him ?
7 For a little while thou hast put him lower than the angels,
crowning him with glory and honour,
8 putting all things wider his feet."
Noiu by 1 ' 'putting all things under him " 2 the writer meant to leave nothing
out of his control. But, as it is, we do not yet see " ill things controlled" by
man ; 9 what we do see is Jesus ''who was put lower than the angels for a
little white" to suffer death, and who has been "crowned with glory and
honour," that by God's grace he might taste death for everyone.
Ou y»P aYY e '^ ot s (yap, as in Greek idiom, opening a new
question; almost equivalent to "now": ou yap = non certe,
Valckenaer) uirira^e (i.e. 6 0eo's, as C vg add) — the writer is
already thinking of virtTa£a<> in the quotation which he is about
to make. In the light of subsequent allusions to /xeWovra ayadd
(g 11 io 1 ) and rj jxiWovcra 7rdA.is (l3 14 ), we see that Trp oiKoujieVTiv
tt)v ixe'Mouo-ai' means the new order of things in which the o-orrrjpia
of i 14 2 2 - 3 is to be realized (see o 28 ), and from which already
influences are pouring down into the life of Christians. The
latter allusion is the pivot of the transition. The powers and
spiritual experiences just mentioned (in v. 4 ) imply this higher,
future order of things (cp. 6 4 - 5 especially Swa^eis re //.eAAov-ros
alamos), from which rays stream down into the present. How
the ministry of angels is connected with them, we do not learn.
But the author had already urged that this service of angels was
rendered to the divine authority, and that it served to benefit
Christians (i 14 ). This idea starts him afresh. Who reigns in
the new order? Not angels but the Son, and the Son who has
come down for a time into human nature and suffered death.
He begins by quoting a stanza from a psalm which seems
irrelevant, because it compares men and angels. In reality this
is not what occupies his mind; otherwise he might have put his
argument differently and used, for example, the belief that
Christians would hold sway over angels in the next world
(1 Co6 2 - 3 ).
1 iv t$ (sc. \iyeiv, as 8 13 ).
2 The omission of this <xvt£ by B d e arm does not alter the sense.
22 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 5 7.
Philo (de opificio. 29, ou trap Scrov vcrraTOf yiyovev &vdpu)Tros, 5ia tt)i> rd^iv
T/Xdrrcorai) argues that man is not inferior in position because he was created
last in order ; but this refers to man in relation to other creatures, not in rela-
tion to angels, as here.
The quotation (vv. 6_8a ) from the 8th psalm runs :
ti IdTtv av6pwTro<; on /iifivtjcrKr) * avrov,
rj vios ai'6p(i)Trov on iTTt.o~K€Trrr] avrov;
r)\drrwo-as avrov fipa)(y ti Trap dyye'Aous,
ho^rj koX TLfjLrj eo-rec/xivwo-as avrov.
iravra V7T€Ta^as VTroKaru) Tail' 7roSaiv avrov.
The LXX tr. DwN not incorrectly by dyyeXous, since the elohim
of the original probably included angels. This was the point of
the quotation, for the author of Hebrews. The text of the
quotation offers only a couple of items, (a) rl is changed into
tis (LXX A) by C* P 104. 917. 1288. 1319. 1891. 2127 vt boh,
either in conformity to the preceding Tts or owing to the feeling
that the more common Tts (in questions, e.g. 12 7 , Jn 12 34 ) suited
the reference to Christ better (Bleek, Zimmer). (b) The quota-
tion omits koX Kareo-rrjcras avrov iirl tol cpya twv \eipwv aov before
77-dvTa : it is inserted by N A C D* M P syr lat boh arm eth Euth.
Theodt. Sedul. to complete the quotation. It is the one line in
the sentence on which the writer does not comment ; probably
he left it out as incompatible with i 10 («pya twv xetpwv aov cto-tv
ot oipavoi), although he frequently quotes more of an OT passage
than is absolutely required for his particular purpose.
In SicfxapTu'paTo 8^ -rroo ti? (v. 6 ), even if the 84 is adversative,
it need not be expressed in English idiom. hiap.apTvpzio-6ai in
Greek inscriptions " means primarily to address an assembly or a
king" (Hicks, in Classical ^Review, i. 45). Here, the only place
where it introduces an OT quotation, it = attest or affirm. IIov tis
in such a formula is a literary mannerism familiar in Philo {De
Ebriet. 14 : c*7re ydp ttov Tts), and ttov later on (4"*) recurs in a
similar formula, as often in Philo. The tis implies no modifica-
tion of the Alexandrian theory of inspiration ; his words are God's
words (v. 8 ). The psalm intends no contrast between TiXdrrwaas
ktX. and 86|fj . . . iaTefy&vwo-as aiir6v. The proof that this wonder-
ful being has been created in a position only slightly inferior to
that of the divine host lies in the fact that he is crowned king
of nature, invested with a divine authority over creation. The
psalm is a panegyric on man, like Hamlet's (" What a piece of
work is man ! how noble in reason ! how infinite in faculties ! in
form and moving how express and admirable ! in action how like
an angel ! " etc.), but with a religious note of wonder and gratitude
to God. In applying the psalm, however, our writer takes fipaxv ti
1 fiif.t.vr}<TKri means mindfulness shown in act, and iirKTiciTrrr), as always in
the NT, denotes personal care.
II. 7, 8.] HUMILIATION AND HONOUR 23
in the sense of "temporarily" rather than "slightly," and so has
to make the " inferiority " and " exaltation " two successive phases,
in applying the description to the career of Jesus. He does not take
this verse as part of a messianic ode ; neither here nor elsewhere
does he use the term "Son of Man." He points out, first of
all (v. 8 ) that, as things are (viiv 8e outtcj : ov tm) = ov 7rws might be
read, i.e. "in no wise," and vvv taken logically instead of temporally ;
but this is less natural and pointed), the last words are still unful-
filled; outtoj opo)/i€f auTw (i.e. man) to. " iran-a " {i.e. rj oiKovp.£vr)
77 /xe'AAovo-a) u-rroTeTayiJieVa. Human nature is not " crowned with
glory and honour " at present. How can it be, when the terror
of death and the devil (v. 15 ) enslaves it? What is to be said,
then ? This, that although we do not see man triumphant, there
is something that we do see : pXe'-n-o/jiei' 'iTjcrouf dealing triumph-
antly with death on man's behalf (v. 9 ). The 'l^o-oGi' comes in
with emphasis, as in 3 1 and 12 2 , at the end of a preliminary
definition toi> . . . T)\aTTtofj.e'eoi'.
It is less natural to take the messianic interpretation which
involves the reference of airw already to him. On this view, the
writer frankly allows that the closing part of the prophecy is still
unfulfilled. " We do not yet see to. trdvTa under the sway of Jesus
Christ, for the world to come has not yet come ; it has only been
inaugurated by the sacrifice of Christ (i 3 KaOapKT/xov twv dp.apTiwv
7rot7ycra/i.£vos Ik6.9l<T€V Iv Se^La rrj? ixeya\<vcrvvrj<; ew vt/^Aois). Though
the Son is crowned (i 8,9 ) and enthroned (i 13 xdOov £k Se£ia>v /xov),
his foes are still to be subdued (ew? av 6w rovs e^povs a-ov vtto7t68iov
twv 7ro8aiv crov), and we must be content to wait for our full a-wr^pta
(g 28 ) at his second coming ; under the ov™ 6pwp.ev ktA. of experi-
ence there is a deeper experience of faith." The writer rather
turns back in v. 9 to the language of v. 7 ; this at least has been
fulfilled. Jesus has been put lower than the angels and he has been
crowned. How and why ? The writer answers the second ques-
tion first. Or rather, in answering the second he suggests the
answer to the first. At this point, and not till then, the messianic
interpretation becomes quite natural and indeed inevitable. It
is the earlier introduction of it which is unlikely. The application
to the messiah of words like those quoted in v. 6 is forced, and
" Hebrews " has no room for the notion of Christ as the ideal or
representative Man, as is implied in the messianic interpretation
of airw in v. 8 . That interpretation yields a true idea — the
thought expressed, e.g., in T. E. Brown's poem, " Sad ! Sad ! " —
"One thing appears to me —
The work is not complete ;
One world I know, and see
It is not at His feet —
Not, not ! Is this the sum ?"
24 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 8.
No, our author hastens to add, it is not the sum ; our outlook is
not one of mere pathos ; we do see Jesus enthroned, with the
Full prospect of ultimate triumph. But the idea of the issues of
Christ's triumph being still incomplete is not true here. What
is relevant, and what is alone relevant, is the decisive character of
his sacrifice. The argument of v. 8 - 9 , therefore, is that, however
inapplicable to man the rhapsody of the psalm is, at present, the
words of the psalm are true, notwithstanding. For we see the
Jesus who was "put lower than the angels for a little while" to
suffer death (Bid. to Trd0r)ua tou Oa^aTou must refer to the death of
Jesus himself, 1 not to the general experience of death as the
occasion for his incarnation), now "crowned with glory and
honour." When Sid to Trd0r|u.a tou Qavdrou is connected with what
follows (86£fl Kal Tijx-rj eore^avwu.eVoi'), it gives the reason for the
exaltation, not the object of the incarnation ( = €is to irdax^v).
But Sid . . . Oavarov is elucidated in a moment by oVws . . . Bavarov.
V. 9 answers the question why Jesus was lowered and exalted — it
was for the sake of mankind. In v. 10 the writer proceeds to ex-
plain how he was " lowered " — it was by suffering that culminated
in death. Then he recurs naturally to the " why." The mixture
of quotation and comment in v. 9 leaves the meaning open to some
dubiety, although the drift is plain. " But one Being referred to in
the psalm (t6c . . . Tj\arra>|ji<W) we do see — it is Jesus, and Jesus
as rjXaTTio/xevov for the purpose of suffering death, and 8<5|tj Kal Tiufj
ecrr€4>ai'wu.eW. Why did he die ? Why was he thus humiliated
and honoured ? For the sake of every man ; his death was virep
TravTo's, part of the divine purpose of redemption." Thus ottws . . .
GamTou explains and expounds the idea of Sid to TrdOrj/xa (which
consists in) tov davdrov, gathering up the full object and purpose
of the experience which has just been predicated of Jesus. This
implies a pause after e<rre<£avw/xeW, or, as Bleek suggests, the
supplying of an idea like o Z-n-aOev before oVids ktX., if yevo-qrai is to
be taken, as it must be, as = " he might taste." How a oVws clause
follows and elucidates hd ktX. may be seen in Ep. Arist. 106 (Sid
toiis ev tous dyeeidis orras, oVios /x^Scvo? #iyydva)o-iv).
As for v. 8a , Paul makes a similar comment (i Co 15 27 ), but excludes God
from the ra. iravra. The curiously explicit language here is intended to
reiterate what is possibly hinted at in v. B , viz., that the next world has no
room for the angelic control which characterizes the present. (The ra iravra
includes even angels !) This belief was familiar to readers of the Greek
bible, where Dt 32 s voices a conception of guardian-angels over the non-
Jewish nations which became current in some circles of the later Judaism.
Non-Jewish Christians, like the readers of our epistle, would be likely to
appreciate the point of an argument which dealt with this. Note that
dwirbraKTov occurs in a similar antithesis in Epictetus, ii. IO. I, raisr-j] t&
1 But not, as the Greek fathers, etc., supposed, as if it was the fact of hif
death (and stay in the underworld) that lowered him (5td = on account of).
II. 9.] THE DEATH OF JESUS 25
&\\a viroreTQ.yfJ.iva, avrrjv 5' aSovXtviof sal avvirbraKrov. Our author's
language reads almost like a tacit repudiation of Philo's remark on Gn l ib in
de opificio Mundi (28), that God put man over all things with the exception
of the heavenly beings — Sao. yap dv-qra iv roh rpurl <rrc»xe' 'S "YV vSari atpi
wdvra virirarrev avT<p, ra. Kar ovpavbv VTrc^eXd/jLevos tire deidrepas ftolpas
(TriXaxovra.
The closing clause of v. 9 (Sirws x ( *P tTl ® €0 " "^P ' jra '' T °s Y 6u '°"n"
Tai Qav&Tou), therefore, resumes and completes the idea of 81a t6
■n-dOr]iJ.a rov Oavdrov. Each follows a phrase from the psalm ;
but 07rws . . . Oavdrov does not follow lar^avujfxivov logically.
The only possible method of thus taking ottws ktX. would be
by applying 8o$rj kcu Tip.rj lan^avwfxivov to Christ's life prior to
death, either (a) to his pre-incarnate existence, when "in the
counsels of heaven " he was, as it were, " crowned for death "
(so Rendall, who makes yevaaaOat Oavdrov cover the "inward
dying" of daily self-denial and suffering which led up to Calvary),
or (b) to his incarnate life (so, e.g., Hofmann, Milligan, Bruce), as
if his readiness to sacrifice himself already threw a halo round
him, or (c) specifically to God's recognition and approval of him
at the baptism and transfiguration (Dods). But the use of &6$a
in v. 10 tells against such theories ; it is from another angle
altogether that Jesus is said in 2 P i 17 to have received tl^v /ecu
86$av from God at the transfiguration. The most natural inter-
pretation, therefore, is to regard 86$rj . . . io-re^avaifievov as
almost parenthetical, rounding off the quotation from the psalm.
It is unnecessary to fall back on such suggestions as (i) to assume
a break in the text after io-refyavuiilvov, some words lost which led
up to oVcds . . . Oavdrov (Windisch), or (ii) to translate oVus by
"how," as in Lk 24 20 , i.e. "we see how Jesus tasted death" (so
Blass, boldly reading eyewraro), or by " after that " or " when "
(Moses Stuart), as in Soph. Oed. Col. 1638 (where, however, it
takes the indicative as usual), etc.
In inrtp ttclvtos, tvo.vt6s was at an early stage taken as neuter, practi-
cally = the universe. This was a popular idea in Egyptian Christianity.
"You know," says the risen Christ to his disciples, in a Bohairic narrative
of the death of Joseph {Texts and Studies, iv. 2. 130), "that many times
now I have told you that I must needs be crucified and taste death for the
universe." The interpretation occurs first in Origen, who (in Joan. i. 35)
writes: "He is a 'great highpriest' [referring to Heb 4 15 ], having offered
himself up in sacrifice once (<x7ra£) not for human beings alone, but for the
rest of rational creatures as well (d\\a ko.1 vwep rQiv Xonrwv \oyiKuv). ' For
without God he tasted death for everyone' (x w i°'s yap ^ eo ^ inrip iravrbs
iyeicraro Oavdrov). In some copies of the epistle to the Hebrews this passage
runs: 'for by the grace of God' (x a P LTL 7<*P Oeov). Well, if 'without God
he tasted death for everyone,' he did not die simply for human beings,
but for the rest of rational creatures as well ; and if ' by the grace of God he
tasted the death for everyone,' x he died for all except for God (xwph Otov) —
for 'by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone.' It would indeed be
1 Reading rod before inrip.
26 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 9
preposterous (&Toirov) to say that he tasted death for human sins and not alsc
for any other being besides man who has fallen into sin — e.g. for the stars.
Even the stars are by no means pure before God, as we read in the book of
lob: ' The stars are not pure before him,' unless this is said hyperbolically.
For this reason he is a 'great highpriest,' because he restores {atroKaOLaTricn)
all things to his Father's kingdom, ordering it so that what is lacking in any
part of creation is completed for the fulness of the Father's glory (irpbs rb
Xuprjcrcu 86i-ai> irarpiK^v)." The Greek fathers adhered steadily to this inter-
pretation of iravrbs as equivalent to the entire universe, including especially
angels. But the neuter is always expressed in " Hebrews " by the plural, with
or without the article, and, as v. 16 shows, the entire interest is in human
beings.
Veija-tjTaL after uvtp iravrbs has also been misinterpreted. Teijeiv in LXX,
as a rendering of ci'tp, takes either genitive (I S 14'- 4 , cp. 2 Mac 6 20 ) or ac-
cusative (I S 14 29 , Job 34 3 ), but yeveadat. dav&rov never occurs; it is the
counterpart of the rabbinic phrase nrvs eye, and elsewhere in the NT
(Mk 9 l = Mt i6 28 =Lk g' 27 , Jn 8--) is used not of Jesus but of men. It
means to experience ( = l5elv davarov, n 5 ). Here it is a bitterexperler.ee,
not a rapid sip, as if Jesus simply "tasted" death (Chrysostom, Theophyl.,
Oecumenius : oil yap ivt/j.eivev ry Oav&Tti) d\\a fibvov avrbv rpbirov riva
aireycvaaTo) quickly, or merely sipped it like a doctor sipping a drug to en-
courage a patient. The truer comment would be: "When I think of our
Lord as tasting death it seems to me as if He alone ever truly tasted death "
(M'Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, p. 259); yevar/Tai does
not echo (3pax6 ti, as though all that Jesus experienced of death was slight or
short.
The hardest knot of the hard passage lies in x°-P lTl Oeov. In
the second century two forms of the text were current, x^pic
eeoy and xapiti eeoy. This is plain from Origen's comment
(see above) ; he himself is unwilling to rule out the latter
reading, but prefers the former, which he apparently found to be
the ordinary text. Theodoret assumed it to be original, as
Ambrose did in the West. Jerome knew both (on Gal 3 10 ),
and the eighth century Anastasius Abbas read x w P^ ("absque
deo : sola enim divina natura non egebat "), i.e., in the sense
already suggested by Fulgentius and Vigilius, that Christ's divine
nature did not die. On the other hand, writers like Eusebius,
Athanasius, and Chrysostom never mention any other reading
than x°-P LTt > Of all the supporters of x^P^ tne m ost emphatic
is Theodore of Mopsuestia, who protests that it is most absurd
(yeXoioTarov) to substitute x° L P lTL ^ €0 ^ f° r X 40 / 3 ' 5 $ eo ^> arguing from
passages like 1 Co 15 10 and Eph 2 8, 9 that Paul's custom is not
to use the former phrase a7rXcos, aXXa ttcivtcos airo tivos a.Ko\ov6ia<;
\6yov. The reading suited the Nestorian view of the person of
Christ, and probably the fact of its popularity among the
Nestorians tended to compromise x w P^ m tne eves 0I " tne ^ ater
church ; it survives only in M 424**, though there is a trace of
it (a Nestorian gloss ?) in three codices of the Peshitto. But
Oecumenius and Theophylact are wrong in holding that it
originated among the Nestorians. This is dogmatic prejudice;
II. 9.] A DOUBTFUL READING 27
Xw/h's was read in good manuscripts, if not in the best, by
Origen's time, and the problem is to determine whether it or
X'ipiri was original. The one may be a transcriptional error for
the other. In this case, the textual canon "potior lectio
difficillima " would favour x w P^- But the canon does not apply
rigidly to every such case, and the final decision depends upon
the internal probabilities. Long associations render it difficult
for a modern to do justice to x w P ts 6*ov. Yet x w P''s is elsewhere
used by our author in a remarkable way, e.g. in g 2S x^P^
afxaprias o^d^arerai, and the question is whether x w P l<s $ €0 ^ here
cannot be understood in an apt, although daring, sense. It
may be (i) "forsaken by God," an allusion to the "dereliction"
of Mk 15 34 (B. Weiss, Zimmer), though this would rather be put
as arep 6eov. (ii) "Apart from his divinity" (see above), i.e.
when Christ died, his divine nature survived. But this would
require a term like rijs #eoV>7Tos. (iii) Taken with iravTos, "die
for everyone (everything ?) except God " (Origen's view, adopted
recently by moderns like Ewald and Ebrard). Of these (i) and
(iii) are alone tenable. Even if (iii) be rejected, it furnishes
a clue to the problem of the origin of the reading. Thus
Bengel and others modify it by taking virep 7ravTo's = to master
everything, x^pis Beov being added to explain that "everything"
does not include God. It is possible, of course, that in the
Latin rendering (ut gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem)
gratia is an original nominative, not an ablative, and repre-
sents x"P ts (Christ = the Grace of God), 1 which came to be
altered into x^pt? and x°-P lTl - But, if x w P's £ °v is regarded as
secondary, its origin probably lies in the dogmatic scruple of
some primitive scribe who wrote the words on the margin as
a gloss upon 7ravTo's, or even on the margin of v. 8 opposite ovhlv
a^rjKcv avTw awrroTaKTov, whence it slipped lower down into the
text. Upon the whole, it seems fairest to assume that at some
very early stage there must have been a corruption of the text,
which cannot be explained upon the available data. But at
any rate x<*P tTt nts i n we ^ "with £7rp£7m, which immediately
follows, and this is one point in its favour. It was x<*p""i @ € °v
that Jesus died for everyone, and this was consonant with God's
character (eTrpeirei yap avrw, i.e. dew). The nearest Latin
equivalent for wpeVoi/, as Cicero (de Officiis, i. 26) said, was
" decorum " (dulce et decorum est pro patria mori), and in this
high sense the divine x°-P l * (4 16 )j shown in the wide range and
object of the death of Jesus, comes out in the process and
method.
1 It was so taken by some Latin fathers like Primasius and by latei
theologians of the Western church like Thomas of Aquinum and Sedulius
Scotus, who depended on the Vulgate version.
28 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 10-18.
The writer now explains (vv. 10-18 ) why Jesus had to suffer
and to die. Only thus could he save his brother men who lay
(whether by nature or as a punishment, we are not told) under
the tyranny of death. To die for everyone meant that Jesus had
ro enter human life and identify himself with men ; suffering is
the badge and lot of the race, and a Saviour must be a sufferer,
if he is to carry out God's saving purpose. The sufferings of
Jesus were neither an arbitrary nor a degrading experience, but
natural, in view of what he was to God and men alike. For the
first time, the conception of suffering occurs, and the situation
which gave rise to the author's handling of the subject arose out
of what he felt to be his readers' attitude. " We are suffering
hardships on account of our religion." But so did Jesus, the
writer replies. " Well, but was it necessary for him any more
than for us ? And if so, how does that consideration help us in
our plight ? " To this there is a twofold answer, (a) Suffering
made Jesus a real Saviour ; it enabled him to offer his perfect
sacrifice, on which fellowship with God depends, (b) He suffered
not only for you but like you, undeigoing the same temptations
to faith and loyalty as you have to meet. The threefold
inference is : (i) do not give way, but realize all you have
in his sacrifice, and what a perfect help and sympathy you
can enjoy, (ii) Remember, this is a warning as well as an
encouragement ; it will be a fearful thing to disparage a
religious tie of such privilege. (iii) Also, let his example
nerve you.
10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was befitting that He for whom and
by whom the universe exists, should perfect the Pioneer of their salvation by
suffering (did trad rjixdruv, echoing 5id rb irdd-rjfxa rod davarov). u For
sanctifier and sanctified have all one origin (e£ evos, sc. yevovs : neuter as Ac
17 26 ). That is why he (6 ayidfav) is not ashamed to call them brothers,
12 saying,
" / will proclaim thy name to my brothers,
in the midst of the church I will sing of thee" ;
13 and again,
"I will put my trust in him";
and again,
" Here am I and the children God has given me."
14 Since the children then (oZv, resuming the thought of v. lla ) share blood
and files h, 1 he himself participated in their nature? so that by dying he might
crush him who wields the power of death (that is to say, the devil), 15 and
release from thraldom those who lay under a life-long fear of death. 16 (For
of course it is not angels that "he succours," it is "the offspring of Abra-
ham "). n He had to resemble his brothers in every respect, in oider to prove
a merciful and faithful high priest in things divine, to expiate the sins of the
1 ai'/xaTos koX crapKos (Eph 6 12 ) is altered into the more conventional aapKhs
Kal a'ijxa.To% by, e.g., K L f vg syr pesh eth boh Theodoret, Aug. Jerome.
2 aiiTuiv, i.e. aifiaros kul aapKos, not wad^ixo.Tuiv, which is wrongly added
by D* d syr pal Eus. Jerome, Theodoret.
II. 10.] THE PURPOSE OF GOD 29
People. x - It is as he suffered by hh temptations thai hi is able to help the
tempted.
It is remarkable (cp. Introd. p. xvi) that the writer does not
connect the sufferings of Jesus with OT prophecy, either gener-
ally (as, e.g., Lk 24 26 ov^t TauTa e&ei - iraOeiv tov Xpicrrdv ktX.), or
with a specific reference to Is 53. He explains them on the
ground of moral congruity. Here they are viewed from God's
standpoint, as in 12 2 from that of Jesus himself. God's purpose
of grace made it befitting and indeed inevitable that Jesus
should suffer and die in fulfilling his function as a Saviour
(v. 10 ) ; then (vv. llf -) it is shown how he made common cause
with those whom he was to rescue.
"Eirp€TT€y yap ktX. (v. 10 ). Upi-reiv or -rpi-rov, in the sense of
" seemly," is not applied to God in the LXX, but is not un-
common in later Greek, e.g. Lucian's Prometheus, 8 (ovre #eots
-rpi-rov ovre. aAAws fiacriXiKov), and the de Mundo, 397^, 398^ (o /ecu
-rpi-rov iarl /cat 0ew /tdAicrra ap/xo^ov — of a theory about the
universe, however). The writer was familiar with it in Philo,
who has several things to say about what it behoved God to do, 2
though never this thing; Philo has the phrase, not the idea.
According to Aristotle (Aic. Ethics, iv. 2. 2, to -rpi-rov St) -rp6<;
avrov, koX iv w koli -repl o), what is " befitting " relates to the
person himself, to the particular occasion, and to the object.
Here, we might say, the idea is that it would not have done for
God to save men by a method which stopped short of suffering
and actual death. " Quand il est question des actes de Dieu,
ce qui est convenable est toujours necessaire au point de vue
metaphysique " (Reuss). In the description of God (for cwtw
cannot be applied to Jesus in any natural sense) 81' or tc\ irdvTa
KOi 81' ou Tci irdk'Ta, the writer differs sharply from Philo. The
Alexandrian Jew objects to Eve (Gn 4 1 ) and Joseph (Gn 40 18 )
using the phrase Sta tov 6eov {Cherubim, 35), on the ground that
it makes God merely instrumental ; whereas, 6 #e6? ahiov, ovk
opyavov. On the contrary, we call God the creative cause
(cutiov) of the universe, opyavov 81 Xoyov Otov 81 ov Ka.Teo-Keva.o~Or).
He then quotes Ex 14" 13 to prove, by the use of -rapd, that
ou 8iot 3 tow £)eov aXXa. Trap avrov u>s oItlov to o"a>£ecr#cu. But our
author has no such scruples about Sid, any more than Aeschylus
had {Agamemnon, i486, Sicu Ai6s 7ravaiTiou iravepyeTa). Like
Paul (Ro ii 36 ) he can say 81' ov to. -rdvTa of God, adding, for
the sake of paronomasia, St' ov to cover what Paul meant by
i$ avTov /cat eis avrov. Or rather, starting with 84 ov tol -ravra he
1 The d5</>ei\ep of v. 17 is not the same as this £5ei.
2 Thus : Trpiir-L r<^ 0ey (pvrevetv ko.1 olicoSofieiv iv ij/vxy rds dperds (Leg.
allcg. I 15).
3 When he does use 8id (de opificio, 24) it is 5i' aiirod txbvov, of creation.
30 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 10.
prefers another 8id with a genitive, for the sake of assonance,
to the more usual equivalent i£ ov or i<p' ov. To preserve the
assonance, Zimmer proposes to render : " um dessentwillen das
All, und durch dessen Willen das All."
The ultimate origin of the phrase probably lies in the mystery-cults ;
Aristides (Els rbv Sdpairic, 51 : ed. Dindorf, i. p. 87), in an invocation of
Serapis, writes to this effect, irdvra yap iravraxov Sid gov re Kal Sid ere tj/juv
ylyverai. But Greek thought in Stoicism had long ago played upon the use
of Sid in this connexion Possibly Sid with the accusative was the primitive
and regular expression, as Norden contends. 1 We call Zeus " ZtJj'o. Kal Ala "
tl>? b\v el \iyoi/iev 81 8v $Cofxev, says the author of de Mundo (401a), like the
older Stoics (see Arnim's Stoicorum veterum Fragmenla, ii. pp. 305, 312),
and Sid with the accusative might have the same causal sense here, 2 i.e.
" through," in which case the two phrases Si 6v and 81 oS would practicall)
be a poetical reduplication of the same idea, or at least = " by whom and
through whom." But the dominant, though not exclusive, idea of Si 8v here
is final, " for whom " ; the end of the universe, of all history and creation,
lies with Him by whom it came into being and exists ; He who redeems is
He who has all creation at His command and under His control.
The point in adding oV or ... to irdvTa to avruj is that the
sufferings and death of Jesus are not accidental ; they form part
of the eternal world-purpose of God. Philo had explained that
Moses was called up to Mount Sinai on the seventh day, because
God wished to make the choice of Israel parallel to the creation
of the world (Quaest. in Exod. 24 16 /JoiAdpevo? k-m^Ci^at. on auros
/cal tov Kocrfxov iSrjfjuovpyrjcre kcu to yeVo? eiAero. H Se avaK\r]cn<;
to?) 7rpocj>y]TOv Seurepa ylveah Icttc t^s irporepas d/mVcov). But our
author goes deeper ; redemption, he reiterates (for this had
been hinted at in i 1 " 4 ), is not outside the order of creation. The
distinction between the redeeming grace of God and the created
universe was drawn afterwards by gnosticism. There is no
conscious repudiation of such a view here, only a definite asser-
tion that behind the redeeming purpose lay the full force of God
the creator, that God's providence included the mysterious
sufferings of Jesus His Son, and that these were in line with
His will.
In ttoXXous ulous the ttoXXol is in antithesis to the one and
only dpxriyos, as in Ro 8 29 , Mk 14 24 . For the first time the
writer calls Christians God's sons. His confidence towards the
Father is in sharp contrast to Philo's touch of hesitation in De
Confus. Ling. 28 (kolv /j.rj8eTru) yiivToi Tvy^dvr/ tis d^to^p£o>s wv vios
deov 7rpoo-ayopeve<j9ai . . . Kal yap el p.r)Tra> tKavol deov TrcuSts
vop.it,€o-6aL yeyoVapev). 'Ayayoi'Ta is devoid of any reference to
1 Agnostos Tkeos, 347 f. (" Das ist die applikation der logisch-gramma-
tischen Theorie iiber den Kasus, der in altester Terminologie, 17 xar alriav
tttuxtls, heisst, auf die Physik : die Welt ist das Objekt der durch die hochste
atria ausgeiibten Tatigkeit ").
2 As in Apoc. 4 n and Epist. Aristeas, 16: 81 8v ^uoiroiovvrai t<x irdvra
Kal ylverai (quoting Zrjva Kal Ala).
II. 10.] THE SUFFERINGS OF JESUS 31
past time. The aorist participle is used adverbially, as often, to
denote "an action evidently in a general way coincident in time
with the action of the verb, yet not identical with it. The
choice of the aorist participle rather than the present in such
cases is due to the fact that the action is thought of, not as in
progress, but as a simple event or fact" (Burton, Moods and
Tenses, 149). It is accusative instead of dative, agreeing with
an implied avrov instead of avrw, by a common Greek assimila-
tion (cp. e.g. Ac 11 12 15 22 22 17 25 27 ). The accusative and
infinitive construction prompted ayayovra instead of dyayoV™.
Had dyayorra been intended to qualify dpxrjyov, iroWovs would
have been preceded by tov. The thought is : thus do men
attain the So£a which had been their destiny (v. 7 ), but only
through a Jesus who had won it for them by suffering.
The mistaken idea that dyay6vra must refer to some action previous to
reAeiwcrcu, which gave rise to the Latin rendering "qui adduxerat " (vg) or
"multis filiis adductis" (vt), is responsible for the ingenious suggestion of
Zimmer that 56£a denotes an intermediate state of bliss, where the dtiaioi of
the older age await the full inheritance of the messianic bliss. It is possible
(see below on n 40 12 23 ) to reconstruct such an idea in the mind of the writer,
but not to introduce it here.
The general idea in apxr]y6v is that of originator or personal
source ; tovtzo-ti, tov oltiov t?}s o-ayrr/pia? (Chrysostom). It is
doubtful how far the writer was determined, in choosing the
term, by its varied associations, but the context, like that of I2 2 ,
suggests that the " pioneer " meaning was present to his mind ;
Jesus was dpx"r|Y°s ttjs <rwTr|pias auiw in the sense that he led the
way, broke open the road for those who followed him. This
meaning, common in the LXX, recurs in Ac 5 31 {ap-^-qyov ko.1
o-(DT7)pa), and suits dyaydvra better than the alternative sense of
the head or progenitor — as of a Greek clan or colony. In this
sense apxqyos is applied to heroes, and is even a divine title of
Apollo as the head of the Seleucidae (OGIS. 212 13 , 219 26 ), as
well as a term for the founder ( = conditor) or head of a philo-
sophical school (Athenaeus, xiii. 563 E, tov apxyyov vp-wv tt/s
o-ocpias Zv?vo)va). But the other rendering is more relevant.
Compare the confession (in the Acts of Maximilianus) of the
soldier who was put to death in 295 a.d. (Ruinart, Acta Martyrum,
pp. 340 f.): "huic omnes Christiani servimus, hunc sequimur
vitae principem, salutis auctorem." The sufferings of Jesus as
dpx^yos o-hiTt}pia<i had, of course, a specific value in the eyes of
the writer. He did not die simply in order to show mortals how
to die ; he experienced death v-n-lp -n-avTo^, and by this unique
suffering made it possible for "many sons" of God to enter the
bliss which he had first won for them. Hence, to "perfect"
(reXeiwaai) the apx-nyos au>TT]pias is to make him adequate,
32 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 10, 11
completely effective. What this involved for him we are not yet
told ; later on (5 9 7 28 ) the writer touches the relation between
the perfect ability of Christ and his ethical development through
suffering (see below, v. 14 ), but meantime he uses this general
term. God had to "perfect" Jesus by means of suffering, that
he might be equal to his task as dpxrjyos or dpxiepeu's (v. 17 ) ; the
addition of olvtwv to o-wnrjptas implies (see 7 26 ) that he himself
had not to be saved from sin as they had. The underlying idea
of the whole sentence is that by thus " perfecting " Jesus through
suffering, God carries out his purpose of bringing " many sons "
to bliss.
The verb had already acquired a tragic significance in connexion with
martyrdom ; in 4 Mac 7 15 {&" Jrtorr) 6o.v6.tov a<ppayh ereXeluoev) it is used of
Eleazar's heroic death, and this reappeared in the Christian vocabulary, as,
e.g., in the title of the Passio S. Perpetuae (/xaprvpiov ttjs aylas HepireTouas ko.1
tG>v cvv aurrj TeXeiojdevTwv iv ' Aippucrj). But, although Philo had popu-
larized the idea of reXevrav = re\e'icrdai, this is not present to our writer's
mind ; he is thinking of God's purpose to realize a complete experience of
forgiveness and fellowship (crwrripLa.) through the Son, and this includes and
involves (as we shall see) a process of moral development for the Son.
The writer now (v. 11 ) works out the idea suggested by iroXXous
olous. Since Jesus and Christians have the same spiritual origin,
since they too in their own way are " sons " of God, he is proud
to call them brothers and to share their lot (vv. 11 " 13 ). The
leader and his company are a unit, members of the one family of
God. It is implied, though the writer does not explain the
matter further, that Christ's common tie with mankind goes back
to the pre-incarnate period ; there was a close bond between
them, even before he was born into the world ; indeed the in-
carnation was the consequence of this solidarity or vital tie (c£
evos, cp. Pindar, Nem. vi. 1, ev dvSpwv, ev 6e£>v yecos). *0 ayidt > un'
and ot dyia^op.ev'oi are participles used as substantives, devoid of
reference to time. Here, as at 13 12 , Jesus is assigned the divine
prerogative of dyia^cir (cp. Ezk 20 12 eyw Kvpios 6 ayuuZfav avrovs,
2 Mac i 25 , etc.), i.e. of making God's People His very own, by
bringing them into vital relationship with Himself. It is another
sacerdotal metaphor; the thought of i 3 (KaOapto-fxbv tw a/xapTiiav
7rot^o-dyu.cvos) is touched again, but the full meaning of dyia£«v is
not developed till o 13f -, where we see that to be "sanctified" is
to be brought into the presence of God through the self-sacrifice
of Christ ; in Other words, ayidteaOai = irpoaepxeo-Oai or eyyt'£eiy
t(3 6ew, as in Nu 16 5 where the dyioi are those whom God
7rpoo"^yayeTo irpo<; kavrov.
According to (Akiba?) Mechilta, Jib (on Ex 20 18 ), God said to the angels
at Sinai, "(Jo down and help your brothers" (orris-nx ?jrpi rrj) ; yet it
was not merely the angels, but God himself, who helped them (the proof-text
being Ca 2 6 !).
II. 11-13.] JESUS AND MEN 33
AC *ji» aiTiak' — a phrase only used elsewhere in the NT by the
author of the Pastoral epistles — ouk ^rraurxuVcTcu kt\. 'Eiraurxu-
vecrQai implies that he was of higher rank, being somehow vtos 6tov
as they were not. The verb only occurs three times in LXX, twice
of human shame (Ps 119 6 , Is i 29 ), and once perhaps of God
( = abl) in Job 34 19 . In Test. Jos. 2 5 it is used passively (oi yap
is avOpoy-n-o's l-traicrxvvvrai 6 6e6<>). In the gospels, besides Mk 3 34 '-
and Mt 25 40 , there are slight traditions of the risen Jesus calling
the disciples his dSeX^oi (Mt 28 10 , Jn 20 17 ); but the writer either
did not know of them or preferred, as usual, to lead biblical
proofs. He quotes three passages (vv. 12 - 13 ), the first from the
22nd psalm (v. 23 ) taken as a messianic cry, the only change
made in the LXX text being the alteration of Sir/yrjo-o/jLai into
airayytku (a synonym, see Ps 55 18 ). The Son associates himself
with his dScA^oi in the praise of God offered by their community
(a thought which is echoed in 12 28 13 15 ).
According to Justin Martyr {Dial. 106), Ps 22 22, ffl foretells how the risen
Jesus stood iv fj.i<rcp tCjv &5e\(pu!v airrov, tQiv aTroarbXiov . . . ical /xer ai/rip
didyuv v/ivr/ae rbv 0e6v, ws Kal iv to?s diro/j.vij/j.ov€VfjLacrtv tQv diroarbXuv
SrjXovrat yeyevrinivav, and in the Acta Joannis (I I) Jesus, before going out to
Gethsemane, says, Let us sing a hymn to the Father (iv fxia-iji 8t avrbs 7ev6-
/j.evos). The couplet is quoted here for the sake of the first line ; the second
fills it out. Our author only uses €KK\r](ria (12 23 ) of the heavenly host, never
in its ordinary sense of the " church."
The second quotation (v. 13a ) is from Is 8 17 ecrojiai TreiroiGws
(a periphrastic future) eir J auTw, but the writer prefixes eyw to
lo-o/xat for emphasis. The insertion of ipel by the LXX at the
beginning of Is 8 17 helped to suggest that the words were not
spoken by the prophet himself. The fact that Jesus required to
put faith in God proves that he was a human being like ourselves
(see 12 2 ).
In Philo trustful hope towards God is the essential mark of humanity ;
e.g. quod det. pot. 38 (on Gn 4 -26 ), rod 5i Kara Muvirrjv avdpdnrov diddecris ipvxys
iirl rdv 6vtus 6vra debv iXiri^ovarjs.
The third quotation (v. 13b ) is from the words which immedi-
ately follow in Is 8 18 , where the LXX breaks the Hebrew
sentence into two, the first of which is quoted for his own
purposes by the writer. The iraiSio are God's children, the
fellow viol of Christ. It is too subtle to treat, with Zimmer, the
three quotations as (a) a resolve to proclaim God, as a man to
men ; (b) a resolve to trust God amid the sufferings incurred in
his mission, and (c) an anticipation of the reward of that mission.
On the other hand, to omit the second koX ttoXlv as a scribal
gloss (Bentley) would certainly improve the sense and avoid the
necessity of splitting up an Isaianic quotation into two, the first
of which is not strictly apposite. But koX irdXiv is similarly l
1 It is a literary device of Philo in making quotations (cp. quis rer. div. 1).
34 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 13, 14.
used in io 30 ; it is more easy to understand why such words should
be omitted than inserted ; and the deliberate addition of cyw in
the first points to an intentional use of the sentence as indirectly
a confession of fellow-feeling with men on the part of the Son.
The same words of the 22nd psalm are played upon by the Od. Sol 31 4 :
"and he (i.e. messiah or Truth) lifted up his voice to the most High, and
offered to Him the sons that were with him (or, in his hands)."
In v. u KeKoivwyrjicev (here alone in the NT) takes the classical
genitive, as in the LXX. An apt classical parallel occurs in the
military writer Polyaenus (Strateg. iii. n. 1), where Chabrias tells
his troops to think of their foes merely as avOpw-n-ois alp.a teal
crapxa t)(ovo~i, kcu ttJs avTrjs <f>vo~eu><; r)plv KtKoivuivrjKOO'iv. The
following phrase irapairXTjaicos ( = "similarly," i.e. almost "equally"
or " also," as, e.g., in Maxim. Tyr. vii. 2, ko.1 ia-rlv ko.1 6 apx^v
7roA.ea>s f«pos, ko.1 ol ap\6p.€voi TrapaTrXrjcriu) 1 ;) fiCTeo^ec . . . Xva kt\.
answers to the thought of rjXa.TTUip.evov . . . Sia to TrdOrjpia kt\.
above. The verb is simply a synonym for Koivwvelv ; in the
papyri and the inscriptions /xcTe\etv is rather more common, but
there is no distinction of meaning between the two.
This idea (tva kt\.) of crushing the devil as the wielder of
death is not worked out by the writer. He alludes to it in passing
as a belief current in his circle, and it must have had some
context in his mind ; but what this scheme of thought was, we
can only guess. Evidently the devil was regarded as having a
hold upon men somehow, a claim and control which meant
death for them. One clue to the meaning is to be found in the
religious ideas popularized by the Wisdom of Solomon, in which
it is pretty clear that man was regarded as originally immortal
(i 13 - 14 ), that death did not form part of God's scheme at the
beginning, and that the devil was responsible for the introduction
of death into the world (2 23 - 24 ); those who side with the devil
encounter death (Treipd^ovcriv 8k avTov ol tt;? ckcivou p-epcSos ovtcs)
which they bring upon themselves as a result of their sins.
Robertson Smith (Expositor 2 , iii. pp. 76 f.) suggests another ex-
planation, viz., that Jesus removes the fear of death by acting as
our Highpriest, since (cp. Nu 18 5 ) the OT priests were respon-
sible for averting death from the people, " the fear of death '
being "specially connected with the approach of an impure
worshipper before God." This certainly paves the way for v. 17 ,
but it does not explain the allusion to the devil, for the illustra-
tion of Zech 3 6f - is too remote.
Corroborations of this idea are to be found in more quarters than one. (a)
There is the rabbinic notion that the angel of death has the power of inflicting
death, according to Pes. Kahana, 32. i89<£ ; Mechilta, 72a on Ex 20 20 (where
Ps 82 s is applied to Israel at Sinai, since obedience to the Torah would have
exempted them from the power of the angel of death), the angel of death
being identified with the devil, (d) There is also the apocalyptic hope that
II. 14, 15.] THE FEAR OF DEATH 35
messiab at the end would crush the power of the devil, a hope expressed
in the second-century conclusion (Freer-Codex) to Mark, where the risen
Christ declares that "the limit (or term, 6 8pos) of years for Satan's power has
now expired." (c) Possibly the author as-umed and expanded Paul's view of
death as the divine punishment for sin executed by the devil, and of Christ's
death as a satisfaction which, by iemoving this curse of the law, did away
with the devil's hold on sinful mortals. Theodoret's explanation [Dial, iii.) is
that the sinlessness of Christ's human nature freed human nature from sin,
which the devil had employed to enslave men : eireidr] yap rifj.wpia rdv a/tap-
tt]k6twv 6 ddvaros rjv, rb 5£ o~u>[/.a rb KvpiaKbv ovk %x ov afxaprias KtjX'iba o irapa
rbv Beiov vdjxov 6 Oa.ua.rot clSLkus i^-qptraaev, avto~TT]o~e /j.Zv irpQ/rov rb Trapavd/xois
Karaaxediv HireiTa dt Kal rots evSLicws Kadeipy/J.ii'ois inricrxeTO ttjc d,7raXXa7^i'.
The force of the paradox in Sid toG GaraTou (to which the
Armenian version needlessly adds airov) is explained by
Chrysostom : oY ov eKpaTrjaev 6 Sid/3oAos, Sid tovtov rjTTrjdr]. As
the essence of awTrjpia is life, its negative aspect naturally
involves emancipation from death. "E^eiv to Kparos tov Oavarov
means to wield the power of death, i.e. to have control of death.
£^€iv to K/aaros with the genitive in Greek denoting lordship in
a certain sphere, e.g. Eurip. Helena, 68 (tis twvS' ipvp-viLv Sw/autwv
l^€i Kparos ;). 'AiraXXdlT] goes with SovAeias (as in Joseph. Ant.
I 3* *3 (363), tt/s vtto tois i\8po7^ airovs SouAeids . . . a7raA-
Adrmv, etc.), which is thrown to the end of the sentence for
emphasis, after 00-01 . . . rjo-av which qualifies toutous. "Evo^oi
is a passive adjective, equivalent to ivex°f Jiev0l > " bound by " (as
in Demosthenes, 1229), and goes with cpofiw Oavarov, which is
not a causal dative. "Oo-oi in Hellenistic Grtek is no more than
the ordinary relative 01. Aid iravTos tou £fji>, not simply in old
age, as Musonius (ed. Hense, xvii.) thinks : ko.\ to ye dOXuDTarov
ttoiovv rbv fiiov tois yepovo'iv airb iariv, 6 tov Oavdrov </>d/?o?.
Aristeas (130, 141, 168) uses oY 6\ov tov £f)v, but Sid 7mi/Tos tov
tfiv is an unparalleled (in NT Greek) instance of an attribute in
the same case being added to the infinitive with a preposition.
There is a classical parallel in the Platonic Sid 7rai'Tos tov civat
(Parmenides, 152 E); but to t,rjv had already come to be
equivalent to 6 fiios.
The enslaving power of fear in general is described by
Xenophon in the Cyropaedia, iii. 1. 23 f . : oiet ovv ti /aSAAov
KaTa8ov\ovo~0ai dv^poWous tou lo~)(vpov cpo/3ov ; . . . ovtu} TrdvT(DV
twv Seivwv 6 (pofios /xdAicrTa KaTaTr\rjTT€i Tas i//iry/*S. Here it !S the
fear of death, or rather of what comes after death, which is
described. The Greek protest against the fear of death (cp.
Epict. iii. 36. 28), as unworthy of the wise and good, is echoed
by Philo {quod omnis probus liber, 3, liraivCnai irapd tlo-iv 6
Tpip.e.Tpov l/ceivo 7roiT/o-as' "tis eo~Ti SouAos, tov Qavtiv dcppovTis wv ; "
<Ls /xdAa o~uviSa>v to S.k6\ov9ov. YTre'Aa^c jdp, otl ovSev ovto)
SovXovaOai TricpVKe Sidroiav, ax; to IttX 6avaTu> Se'os, eveKa tov 7r/)6s
to ifiv Ifiipov). But the fear persisted, as we see from writers
36 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 15, 16.
like Seneca (" optanda mors est sine metu mortis mori," Troades,
869) and Cicero ; the latter deals with the fear of death in De
Finibus, v. n, as an almost universal emotion ("fere sic afnci-
untur omnes "). Lucretius as a rationalist had denounced it
magnificently in the De Rerum Natura, which " is from end to
end a passionate argument against the fear of death and the
superstition of which it was the basis. The fear which he
combated was not the fear of annihilation, but one with which
the writer of this Epistle could sympathize, the fear of what
might come after death ; ' aeternas quoniam poenas in morte
timendum est ' (i. 1 1 1) " (VVickham). The fear of death as death
(cp. Hamack's History of Dogma, iii. 180) has been felt even
by strong Christians like Dr. Johnson. But our author has
more in view. Seneca's epistles, for example, are thickly strewn
with counsels against the fear of death ; he remonstrates with
Lucilius on the absurdity of it, discusses the legitimacy of
suicide, if things come to the worst, points out that children and
lunatics have no such fear {Ep. xxxvi. 12), and anticipates most
of the modern arguments against this terror. Nevertheless, he
admits that it controls human life to a remarkable extent, even
though it is the thought of death, not death itself, that we dread
{Ep. xxx 17); he confesses that if you take anyone, young,
middle-aged, or elderly, "you will find them equally afraid of
death" (xxii. 14). And his deepest consolation is that death
cannot be a very serious evil, because it is the last evil of all
("quod extremum est," Ep. iv. 3) Now the author of Hpb<;
'EfipaLovs sees more beyond death than Seneca. " After death,
the judgment." The terror which he notes in men is inspired by
the fact that death is not the final crisis (q 27 ). "Ultra (*.*. post
mortem) neque curae neque gaudio locum esse," said Sallust.
It was because a primitive Christian did see something " ultra
mortem," that he was in fear, till his hope reassured him (9 28 ).
It is noteworthy that here (vv. 14- 15 ) and e'sewhere our author, not un-
like the other 5i5ci<r/<a\os who wrote the epistle of James, ignores entirely the
idea of the devil as the source of temptation ; he does not even imply the
conception of the devil, as 1 Peter does, as the instigator of persecution.
In one of his terse parentheses the writer now (v. 16 ) adds,
ou yap StJttou ayyiXuv eTri.\au.J3deeTai. Ayirov is the classical term
for "it need hardly be said" or "of course," and €ViA.a/A/3uv6o-#ai
means "to SUCCOUr" (Sir 4 11 rj crocpta vlovs iavrfj avvif/waev, /ecu
€7riAa/z/?<ii'€Tai tw £yjtovvtwv avrrjv). If it meant " seize " or
"grip," OdvaTos (i.e. either death, or the angel of death, cp. v. 14 )
might be taken as the nominative, the verse being still a
parenthesis. This idea, favoured by some moderns, seems to
lie behind the Syriac version (cp. A. Bonus, Expository Times,
xxxiii. pp. 234-236); but iTrtXa/xfidvecrOat. here corresponds to
II. 16, 17.] THE AID OF JESUS 37
Pot)0t}<tcu in v. 18 , and is used in the same good sense as in the
other quotation in S 9 . The words dXXd aTrepparos 'Af3padp
tiriXafiPaKCTai may be a reminiscence of Is 41 s - 9 where God
reassures Israel : anrippa 'A/Jpadp, . . . ov avTeXa /36p.r}v. The
archaic phrase was perhaps chosen, instead of a term like
avOpwirwv, 1 on account of Abraham's position as the father of the
faithful (see n 8f -). Paul had already claimed it as a title for
all Christians, irrespective of their birth : ovk Zvi 'IovScuos ovh\
"EXX??v . . . «t Se iiybuts XpioTov, apa tot) 'Afipaap. o-7rtpp.a leni
(Gal 3 28 - 29 ), and our author likes these archaic, biblical peri-
phrases. He repeats iTn\ap.f3dvtrai after 'A/Spad/*, to make a
rhetorical antistrophe (see Introd. p. lvii).
It is a warning against the habit of taking the Greek fathers as absolute
authorities for the Greek of Tlpds 'Efipalovs, that they never suspected the real
sense of €iri\afj.j3dverai here. To them it meant "appropriates" (the nature
of). When Castellio (Chatillon), the sixteenth century scholar, first pointed
out the true meaning, Beza pleasantly called his opinion a piece of cursed
impudence ("execranda Castellionis audacia qui iwiKaupdveTai convertit
' opitulatur,' non modo falsa sed etiam inepta interpretatione "). The mere
fact that the Greek fathers and the versions missed the point of the word is
a consideration which bears, e.g., upon the interpretation of a word like
inrocrTaais in 3 14 and II 1 .
The thought of vv. 14 - 15 is now resumed in v. 17 ; oQev (a
particle never used by Paul) w<j>eiXev (answering to iirprn-w)
Kcrrd irdcTa (emphatic by position) tois d8eX4)ois 6p,oiaj0r}kai —
resembling them in reality, as one brother resembles another
(so Test. Naphtali I 8 o/xoio's pov t/v Kcrrd iravra 'Ioktt^). In
what follows, cXerjpwc 2 is put first for emphasis (as the writer is
about to speak of this first), and goes like ma-ros with dpxiepeo's.
"Quae verba sic interpretor : ut misericors esset, ideoque
fidelis," Calvin argues. But this sequence of thought is not
natural; loyalty to God's purpose no doubt involved compassion
for men, but Christ was 7n.'o-Tos as he endured stedfastly the
temptations incurred in his -n-XeiWis as dpx^yos. He suffered,
but he never swerved in his vocation. Nor can 7rto-Tos here
mean "reliable" (Seeberg, Der Tod Christi, 17), i.e. reliable be-
cause merciful ; the idea of his sympathy as an encouragement
to faith is otherwise put (cp. 4 14f - i2 lf> ). The idea of TeXeiwaai
in v. 10 is being explicitly stated ; the sufferings of Christ on earth
had a reflex influence upon himself as Saviour, fitting him for
the proper discharge of his vocation. But the v< cation is
described from a new angle of vision ; instead of apxvyo* or
6 dyid£wr, Jesus is suddenly (see Introd. p. xxv) called dpxiepev's,
1 Cosmas Indicopleustes correctly interpreted the phrase : tovt(cti
<rd)[j.a.Tos Kai i/'i'X''? 5 ^oyLKrjs (372 B).
2 The seer in Enoch 40 1 ' 10 has a vision of the four angels who intercede
for Israel before God ; the first is " Michael, the merciful and longsuffering."
38 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [II. 17.
evidently a term familiar to the readers (dpxt-epea t^s opoAoyias
rjjxwv, 3 2 ). The prestige of the highpriest in the later Judaism
is plain in rabbinic (e.g. Berachoth, Joma) tradition and also in
apocalyptic. The Maccabean highpriests assumed the title of
lepev<; tov deov tov vif/iaTov (Ass. Mosis, 6 1 ; Jubilees, 32 1 ), and the
ritual of the day of atonement, when he officiated on behalf of
the people, was invested with a special halo. This is the point
of the allusion here, to the dp^iepcv's expiating the sins of the
people. Philo had already used the metaphor to exalt the
functions of his Logos as a mediator : 6 8' airos iKen/s peV Icttl
tov dvrjrov KrjpaivovTOS dei 7rpos to dcpOapTov, 7rp€o-/3e 117775 8e tov
■qye/xoVos Trpo? to vttyJkoov (guis rerum div. heres, 42). But, while
the term i/ceV^s does imply some idea of intercession, this is
not prominent in Philo's cosmological and metaphysical scheme,
as it is in our epistle, which carefully avoids the Philonic
idea that men can propitiate God (/3ovXeTm yap avrov 6 vopos
p,€i£ovos fi.e /xo 1 paa 8 at cpvaew; ?) kclt dvOpmirov, iyyvrepw TrpocnovTa.
T?}s #£ias, p.e66piov, el Set raXrjdk'i Xeyecv, dfxcpoLv, Iva Sid p.eo~ov
Tivos av8pw7roi jxev tXacr/caii'Tai deov, 6e6<; Se Tas ^dpiTa? avOpwiroLS
VTroStaKOvit) tlvl ^paj/xcvos opeyrj Koii X PVyV' De Spec. Leg. i. 12).
Again, Philo explains (de sacerdot. 12) that the highpriest was
forbidden to mourn, when a relative died, Iva. . . . KpeiTTwv
olktov yevo'pevo?, aXv-iro 1 ; eh del SiaTeAr/. This freedom from the
ordinary affections of humanity was part of his nearer approxi-
mation to the life of God (eyyvrepu) TrpocriovTa rrjs OeCa.%
[4>vo-e<i>s]). But our author looks at the function of Christ as
dpxifpfi;? differently ; the first word to be used about him in this
connexion is iXerjp.wv, and, before passing on to develop the idea
of 7T6o-to's, the writer adds (v. 18 ) another word upon the practical
sympathy of Christ. In resembling his dSeXcpol Kara iravrd
Christ TriirovOev irupao-Qeh. His death had achieved for them
an emancipation from the dread of death (v. 14 ); by entering
into glory he had expiated the sins of God's People, thereby
securing for them a free and intimate access to God. But the
process by means of which he had thus triumphed was also of
value to men ; it gave him the experience which enabled him by
sympathy to enter into the position of those who are tempted
as he was, and to furnish them with effective help. The con-
nexion between v. 18 (with its ydp) and v. 17 does not rest upon
the idea of Christ as iXerjfxwv nal ttio-tos dp-^iepevs, as though the
effective help received from Christ were a constant proof that he
expiates sins, i.e. maintains us in the favour and fellowship of
God (Seeberg). It rests on the special idea suggested by
eXerjp.wv. " His compassion is not mere pity for men racked
... by pain in itself, however arising ; it is compassion for
men tempted by sufferings towards sin or unbelief" (A. B.
II. 17, 18.] THE TEMPTATIONS OF JESUS 39
Davidson). What the writer has specially in mind is the agony
in Gethsemane (cp. s 7f -) as the culminating experience of sorrow
caused by the temptation to avoid the fear of death or the cross.
The adverbial accusative t& irpds tov 0eoV here, as in 5 1 , is a
fairly common LXX phrase (e.g. Ex 4 16 (of Moses), av ok avriZ
lo~rj to. 7rpo? tov 6eov). c lXd«TK€a0ai -rds dpapTias is also a LXX
phrase, an expression for pardon or expiation, as in Ps 65* (to?
dcreySetas rjfxwv o-v lAdo-?/), which never occurs again in the NT.
When the verb (middle voice) is used of God's dealings with
men, it generally takes the person of the sinner as its object
in the dative (as Lk 18 13 , the only other NT instance of
IXdo-KecrOai) or else sins in the dative (reus dyxaprtais is actually
read here by A 5. 33. 623. 913, Athan. Chrys. Bentley, etc.).
This removal of sins as an obstacle to fellowship with God
comes under the function of 6 dyid£wc. The thought reappears
in 7 25 and in 1 Jn 2 2 (koX auros iXa(T/i.ds icmv).
6 Xa6s (tov 6eov) is the writer's favourite biblical expression for the church,
from the beginning to the end ; he never distinguishes Jews and Gentiles.
The introduction of the Treipacr/xoL of Jesus (v. 18 ) is as
abrupt as the introduction of the dpxiepev's idea, but is thrown
out by way of anticipation. 'Ev u ydp = iv tovtw lv <S (causal) or
on, explaining not the sphere, but the reason of his " help,"
TreTTOwOei/ au-rds ireipao-Geis — the participle defining the Trdo-^eiv (a
term never applied to Jesus by Paul) : he suffered by his tempta-
tions, the temptations specially in view being temptations to
avoid the suffering that led to the cross. This is the situation
of the readers. They are in danger of slipping into apostasy, of
giving up their faith on account of the hardships which it in-
volved. Ot 7T€ipa^o'p,€voi are people tempted to flinch and falter
under the pressure of suffering. Life is hard for them, and faith
as hard if not harder. Courage, the writer cries, Jesus under-
stands ; he has been through it all, he knows how hard it is to
bear suffering without being deflected from the will of God.
Grammatically, the words might also read: "For he himself,
having been tempted by what he suffered, is able to help those
who are tempted." The sense is really not very different, for
the particular temptations in view are those which arise out
of the painful experience of having God's will cross the natural
inclination to avoid pain. But the 1re1pa.0~fx.01 of Jesus were
not simply due to what he suffered. He was strongly tempted
by experiences which were not painful at all — e.g. by the re-
monstrance of Simon Peter at Caesarea Philippi. As Ritschl
puts it, "Christ was exposed to temptation simply because a
temptation is always bound up with an inclination which is at
the outset morally legitimate or permissible. It was the impulse.
40 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [EL 18-111. 1.
in itself lawful, of self-preservation which led to Christ's desire to
be spared the suffering of death. And this gave rise to a tempta-
tion to sin, because the wish collided with his duty in his
vocation. Christ, however, did not consent to this temptation.
He renounced his self-preservation, because he assented to the
Divine disposal of the end of his life as a consequence of his
vocation " {Rechtjertigung u. Versohnung, Hi. 507 ; Eng. tr. p. 573).
On the suffering that such temptation involved, see below on 5 s .
BoTjOeir and IXdaKccrOai tcus djiapTiats occur side by side in
the prayer of Ps 79 9 (LXX). Are they synonymous here? Is
the meaning of to iXdo-Keo-0ai Tas d/xaprt'as tov Xaov that Christ
constantly enables us to overcome the temptations that would
keep us at a distance from God or hinder us from being at peace
with God? (so, e.g., Kurtz and M'Leod Campbell, The Nature of
the Atonement, pp. 172-174). The meaning is deeper. The
help conveyed by the sympathy of Jesus reaches back to a
sacrificial relationship, upon which everything turns. Hence the
ideas of eXcTjpwi/ and mo-Tos are now developed, the latter in 3 1 " 6 *,
the former in 4 14f -, 3 6b -4 13 being a practical application of what
is urged in 3 1 " 6 *. But the writer does not work out the thought
of Christ as ttio-tos in connexion with his function as dp^tepcus,
even though he mentions the latter term at the outset of his
appeal, in which the stress falls on the expiatory work of Christ.
1 Holy brothers (dyioi = ol ayia^Sfievoi, 2 U ), you who participate in a
heavenly calling, look at Jesus then (5dev in the light of what has just been
said), at the apostle and highpriest of our confession ; 2 he is " faithful" to
Him who appointed him. For while " Moses" also was "faithful in every
department of God's house" 3 Jesus (ovtos, as in IO 12 ) has been adjudged greater
glory (56£t]s) than (irapa, as I 4 ) Moses, inasmuch as the founder of a house
enjoys greater honour (ti/xtiv, a literary synonym for dd^rjv) than the house
itself. * (Every house is founded by some one, but God is the founder of all.)
6 Besides, while " Moses " was "faithful in every department of God's house "
as an attendant — by way of witness to the coming revelation — 6 Christ is
faithful as a son over God's house.
In v. 2 8X<i> (om. p 13 B sah boh Cyr. Amb.) may be a gloss from v. 8 . In
v. 8 the emphasis on wXeiovos is better maintained by oCros 5<5£t/s (n A B C D P
vt Chrys.) than by dofrs oCros (p 13 K L M 6. 33. 104. 326. 1 175. 1288 vg) or
by the omission of oCros altogether (467 arm Basil). In v. 4 iravTa has been
harmonized artificially with I s 2 10 by the addition of r<£ (C° LP* 104. 326.
1 175. 1 1 28 Athan.).
For the first time the writer addresses his readers, and as
doe\(f>o! dyioi (only here in NT, for dyi'ois in 1 Th 5 s7 is a later
insertion), kXtjo^ws cirouptmou fieVoxoi (6 4 etc., cp. Ps 119 63 fxiroxoi
iyw clfii ndvTiov twv (fio/3ovfx.ivwv o~e, Ep. Anst. 207 ; de Mu?ido,
AfOib). In Ph 3 14 the avu> kX^o-js is the prize conferred at the
end upon Christian faith and faithfulness. Here there may be a
side allusion to 2 11 (dScAcpovs avrovs xaXctv). In KaTai'O'po-aTe (a
verb used in this general sense by Ep. Aristeas, 3, 7rpos 10
III. L] JESUS THE APOSTLE 4 1
Trepupyws tcl 6eia KaTavoeiv) ktX., the writer summons his readers
to consider Jesus as 77-10-1-05 ; but, instead of explaining why or
how Jesus was loyal to God, he uses this quality to bring out
two respects (the first in vv. 2a - 4 , the second in vv. 6-6a ) in which
Jesus outshone Moses, the divinely-commissioned leader and
lawgiver of the People in far-off days, although there is no tone
of disparagement in the comparison with Moses, as in the com-
parison with the angels.
In the description of Jesus as tcV dirdcn-oXoi' ieal dpxiepe'a Tfjs
o/jLoXoyias vpwv, 6/xoAoyt'a is almost an equivalent for "our re-
ligion," as in 4 14 (cp. io 23 ). 1 Through the sense of a vow (LXX)
or of a legal agreement (papyri and inscriptions), it had naturally
passed into the Christian vocabulary as a term for the common
and solemn confession or creed of faith. 'Hfiwv is emphatic.
In "our religion" it is Jesus who is d?rdcrToAos koX dp^iepct's, not
Moses. This suits the context better than to make the antithesis
one between the law and the gospel (Theophyl. ov yap 1-775 Kara.
vofiov Xarpelas dp^iepei's iaTLV, a\Xa t>}s i/yuertpas 7n.'crTea)s). Possibly
the writer had in mind the Jewish veneration for Moses which
found expression during the second century in a remark of rabbi
Jose ben Chalafta upon this very phrase from Numbers (Sifre,
§ no) : "God calls Moses 'faithful in all His house,' and thereby
he ranked higher than the ministering angels themselves." The
use of diTooToXos as an epithet for Jesus shows " the fresh cre-
ative genius of the writer and the unconventional nature of his
style" (Bruce). Over half a century later, Justin (in Apol. i 12 )
Called Jesus Christ tou ?raTpds Tzavrwv kox BecnroTov Beov ulds kcu
a7roo-ToA.os wv, and in Apol. i 03 described him as dyycXos koX
d-rdcrToXos' avTOS yap diTayyeXXei 00a Sei yvuifrdrjvai, /ecu a7rocr-
i-e'XAtTcu, fjL-qvvo-wv 00a dyye'AAei-cu (the connexion of thought here
possibly explains the alteration of Suiyi/Vo/xcu into d7rayyeAw in
He 2 12 ). Naturally Jesus was rarely called dyy«Xos; but it was
all the easier for our author to call Jesus dTrdo-ToXos, as he avoids
the term in its ecclesiastical sense (cp. 2 3 ). For him it carries
the usual associations of authority ; d7rdo-ToXos is Ionic for Trpea-
/3evTr;s, not a mere envoy, but an ambassador or representative
sent with powers, authorized to speak in the name of the person
who has dispatched him. Here the allusion is to 2 3 , where the
parallel is with the Sinaitic legislation, just as the allusion to
Jesus as dpxiepeus recalls the 6 dyid£wv of 2 n - 17 . On the other
hand, it is not so clear that any explicit antithesis to Moses is
implied in dp^tcpe'a, for, although Philo had invested Moses with
1 Had it not been for these other references it might have been possible to
take t. 6. 7;. here as =" whom we confess." The contents of the o/ioXoyia
are suggested in the beliefs of 6 lf- , which form the fixed principles and stand,
ards of the community, the Truth (io" 6 ) to which assent was given at baptisra.
42 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ill. 2-4.
highpriestly honour (praem. et poen. 9, tv-v^wci . . . apyiipuxrvvt)^
de vita Mosis, ii. I, kyivs.ro yap irpovoia 6eov . . . dp^ie/stus), this
is never prominent, and it is never worked out in " Hebrews."
The reason why they are to look at Jesus is (v. 2 ) his faithful-
ness tw TToiTJaarri auToe, where iroieiv means "to appoint" to an
office (as I S I2 6 Kvpios 6 Troi^cras tov Mu>vo~rjv kcu tov 'Aapwv,
Mk 3 14 Kol €7roLr]o-€v SwScKa). This faithfulness puts him above
Moses for two reasons. First (vv. 2b - 4 ), because he is the founder
of the House or Household of God, whereas Moses is part of the
House. The text the writer has in mind is Nu 1 2 1 (oix outws
6 depdirotv /xov Mojuot??' iv oA.a> T(p olku) p.ov 7rirjTos icmv), and the
argument of v. 3 , where oIkos, like our " house," includes the sense
of household or family, 1 turns on the assumption that Moses be-
longed to the oikos in which he served so faithfully. How Jesus
" founded " God's household, we are not told. But there was an
otKo? Oeov before Moses, as is noted later in ii 2 - 25 , a line of
Trpeo-fivrepoi who lived by faith ; and their existence is naturally
referred to the eternal Son. The founding of the Household is
part and parcel of the creation of the rd irdvra (i 2 - 3 ). Kara-
arK€vdt,iLv includes, of course (see g 2 - 6 ), the arrangement of the oTkos
(cp. Epict. i. 6. 7-10, where Karao-Kevd^w is similarly used in the
argument from design). The author then adds an edifying aside,
in v. 4 , to explain how the 0**05 was God's (v. 2 avrov), though
Jesus had specially founded it. It would ease the connexion of
thought if 0eo9 meant (as in i 8 ?) "divine "as applied to Christ
(so, e.g., Cramer, M. Stuart), or if ovtos could be read for tfeo's,
as Blass actually proposes. But this is to rewrite the passage.
Nor can we take aiTov in v. 6a as " Christ's " ; there are not two
Households, and 77-as (v. 4 ) does not mean " each " (so, e.g.,
Reuss). Avrov in vv. 2 - 5 and 6a must mean " God's." He as
creator is ultimately responsible for the House which, under him,
Jesus founded and supervises.
This was a commonplace of ancient thought. Justin, e.g., observes:
MevdvBpCj) t£ k<i>iaik$ ko.1 tois ravra <p7\aa.<n ravra <t>pa^o^€V fiel^ova yap rbv
drjfXLOnpybv tov aKevafo/xevov aTrecp-qvaro {Apol. I 20 ). It had been remarked by
Philo {De Plant. 16) : Scrip yap 6 KTTjcra/j.ei>os rb KTrj/j.a tov /cTTj/xaros Aftelvuv
kcu rd TreiroirjKbs tov yeyovdros, ToaovTtp (3ao-CkiKurrepoi aicelpoi, and in Legu/n
Allegor. iii. 32 he argues that just as no one would ever suppose that a furnished
mansion had been completed &vev t^x^V^ Kal Si]/xiovpyov, so anyone entering
and studying the universe ucnrep eh fj.eyio-TT)v olidav Jj ir6\iv would naturally
conclude that ty nal icmv 6 roDSe tov vavTos byniovpybs 6 debs.
The usual way of combining the thought of v. 4 with the context is indicated
by Lactantius in proving the unity of the Father and the Son (diuin. instit. iv.
29) : " When anyone has a son of whom he is specially fond (quern unice
diligat), a son who is still in the house and under his father's authority (in
manu patris) — he may grant him the name and power of lord (nomen
1 Our author avoids (see on 2 12 ) iKK\t\<jia, unlike the author of 1 Ti 3 18 who
writes iv otntp deov, tjtis icnlv iKKK-qaia tov Oeov.
III. 5-6.J A PLEA FOR LOYALTY 43
domini potestatemque), yet by civil law (civili iure) the house is one, and one
is called lord. So this world is one house of God, and the Son and the
Father, who in harmony (unanimos) dwell in the world, are one God."
The second ( 5 " 6a ) proof of the superiority of Jesus to Moses
is now introduced by «at. It rests on the term Oepd-n-wi' used of
Moses in the context (as well as in Nu n 11 i2 7 - 8 etc. ; of Moses
and Aaron in Wis io 16 18 21 ); Oepdirwv is not the same as 80OA09,
but for our author it is less than vios, and he contrasts Moses as
the Oepairuiv iv to otKu> with Jesus as the Son inl rbv oTkov, hrl
used as in IO 21 (lepea yae'yav eVi tov oXkov rov deov) and Mt 25 21,23
(e7ri oAtya ^s ttio-tos). Moses is " egregius domesticus fidei tuae "
(Aug. Con/, xii. 23). The difficult phrase els to ixapTupioy twv
\a\Tj0rjcropeVui' means, like 9 9 , that the position of Moses was one
which pointed beyond itself to a future and higher revelation ;
the tabernacle was a o-Krjv-q rov papTvplov (Nu 12 5 ) in a deep
sense. This is much more likely than the idea that the faith-
fulness of Moses guaranteed the trustworthiness of anything he
said, or even that Moses merely served to bear testimony of what
God revealed from time to time (as if the writer was thinking of
the words o-ro'/xa Kara crTopLa XaXrja-oi aura) which follow the above-
quoted text in Numbers).
The writer now passes into a long appeal for loyalty, which
has three movements (3 6b - 19 4.1-10 4 11 - 13 ). The first two are con-
nected with a homily on Ps 95 7 " 11 as a divine warning against
the peril of apostasy, the story of Israel after the exodus from
Egypt being chosen as a solemn instance of how easy and fatal it
is to forfeit privilege by practical unbelief. It is a variant upon
the theme of 2 2 - 3 , suggested by the comparison between Moses
and Jesus, but there is no comparison between Jesus and Joshua ;
for although the former opens up the Rest for the People of
to-day, the stress of the exhortation falls upon the unbelief and
disobedience of the People in the past.
6 Now we are this house of God {ov, from the preceding clvtov), if we will
only keep confident and proud of our hope. 7 Therefore, as the holy Spirit says :
" Today, when (i<iv, as in I Jn 2^) you hear his voice,
8 harden not (fir) <TK\vpvvr)Te, aor. subj. of negative entreaty) your hearts as
at the Provocation,
on the day of the Temptation in the desert,
9 where (ov — 8-rrov as Dt 8 15 ) your fathers put me to the proof ,
10 and for forty years felt what I could do. "
Therefore " /grew exasperated with that generation,
1 said, ' They are always astray in their heart ' ;
they would not learn my ways ;
11 so (lis consecutive) / swore in my anger
1 they shall never {d — the emphatic negative CN in oaths) enter my Pest,'"
12 Brothers, take care in case there is a wicked, unbelieving heart in any oj
you, moving you to apostatize from the living God. 13 Rather admonish one
another (eavrovs = dAXijAoi/s) daily, so long as this word " Today" is uttered,
that none of you may be deceived by sin and " hardened." 14 For we only
44 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [III. 6-8.
participate in Christ provided that we keep firm to the very end the confidence
with which we started, 16 this word ever sounding in our ears :
" Today, when you hear hii voice,
harden not your hearts as at the Provocation."
16 Who heard and yet '■'provoked" him? Was it not all who left Egypt
under the leadership of Moses? 17 And with whom was he exaperated for
forty years ? Was it not with those who sinned, whose ' ' corpses l fell in the
desert"? 18 And to whom "did he swear that they (sc. avrovs) would never
enter his Rest " ? To whom but those who disobeyed (a.ireidijaaai.v, cp. Ac ig 9 ) ?
19 Thus (ko.1 consecutive) we see it was owing to unbelief that they could not
enter.
In v. 6 {a) ov is altered into 6<t by D* M 6. 424 Lat Lucifer, Ambr. Pris-
cillian, probably owing to the erroneous idea that the definite article (supplied
by 440. 2005) would have been necessary between o5 and oIkos. (b) iav is
assimilated to the text of v. 14 by a change to iavirep in n° A C D c K L W
syr hkl Lucifer, Chrys. etc. (von Soden). (<r) After <?\tti5os the words ;ix<?XP'
TtXovs pepaiav are inserted from v. 14 by a number of MSS ; the shorter,
correct text is preserved in p 13 B 1739 sah eth Lucifer, Ambrose.
V. 6b introduces the appeal, by a transition from 6a . When
Philo claims that irappr|ixia is the mark of intelligent religion
(quis rer. div. haeres, 4, rots pikv ovv a/xaOeo-t avp.tpi.pov rjo-vxia,
tois Sc (.TTLCTTrjix-qs i<f>UjjL€Vois kcu ayaa <^tAoSeo-7rdroi? avayKaiorarov tj
irapprja-ia KTrjp.a), he means by Trapprjaia the confidence which is
not afraid to pray aloud : cp. ib. 5 (Trapprjala Sc <ptXtas truyycvcs,
cVei 7rpos Ttva av tis 17 7rpos t6v kavTOv cpiXov irappyjcriacraiTO ;), where
the prayers and remonstrances of Moses are explained as a proof
that he was God's friend. But here as elsewhere in the NT
Trapprjma has the broader meaning of " confidence" which already
appears in the LXX (e.g. in Job 27 10 fir] l^ci two. irapprjcrCar
IvavTiov avrov). This confidence is the outcome of the Christian
ikirk (for r>}s eA.7rt'8os goes with rrjy irappr)<r£av as well as with to
Kavxnp-a); here as in 4 16 and io 19 - 35 it denotes the believing
man's attitude to a God whom he knows to be trustworthy.
The idea of t6 Kaux^p-a ttjs eXiuoos is exactly that of Ro 5 2
(Kavx^p-tOa- «r lAiriSt t^s 86$rj<i tov dtov), and of a saying like
Ps 5 12 (koX zv(ppa.v6r)T(D(Tav hrl trot TravTes 01 cAirt^oi'TCS cVt o"e).
A16 in v. 7 goes most naturally with pj ai<\r|puVr)Te (v. 8 ), the
thought of which recurs in v. 13 as the central thread. The
alternative, to take it with |3XeiTeTe in v. 12 , which turns the whole
quotation into a parenthesis, seems to blunt the direct force of
the admonition; it makes the parenthesis far too long, and
empties the second 816 of its meaning. |3Xe'TT€Tc is no more
abrupt in v. 12 than in 12 25 ; it introduces a sharp, sudden
warning, without any particle like ovv or 8c, and requires no pre-
vious term like Sid. The quotation is introduced as in io 15 by
"the holy Spirit" as the Speaker, a rabbinic idea of inspiration.
The quotation itself is from Ps 95 7 " 11 which in A runs as follows :
1 nrwXa in this sense is from Nu 14 s9 - 32 , a passage which the writer has
in mind.
III. 9.] A WARNING 45
0-tjfj.epov iav rrjs <£(ovf}s avTou aKOvarjTe,
/X7] crKXrjpvvrjTe Tas /capoias Vfjiwv <Ls ev tw TrapaTTLKpacrfJui)
Kara nqv r)p.epav rov Treipaafxov ev rrj epy/xu}'
ou eVeipacrav * ol 7raT€pes vp\Hiv,
iSoKLfiacrav fie kol 18ov to. epya fiov.
recraepaKOVTa err] Trpoa-(ji\6i(Ta rrj yevea ckciVt;, 2
ko.l ci7rov" 3 del * 7r\ai>wvTa.L rrj Kap&ia,
avTol 8e ovk eyvwcrav Tas ooous uou.
ws wuocra ev rrj opyrj fxov,
el el<re\ivcrovTai cts ttjv KaTairawiv fxov.
In vv. 9 - 10 , though he knew (v. 17 ) the correct connexion of the
LXX (cp. v. 17a ), he alters it here for his own purpose, taking
TecnrapditoyTa Ittj with what precedes instead of with what follows,
inserting Sid (which crept into the text of R in the psalm) before
ir-pocroixfiio'ci for emphasis, and altering eSoKiji.affai' fxe into iv 8okl-
uacna. 5 The LXX always renders the place-names " Meriba "
and " Massa " by generalizing moral terms, here by irapaTn.Kpa<r/x6'i
and 7r€ipao-/Ao's, the former only here in the LXX (Aquila. i Sam
15 33 ; Theodotion, Prov 17 11 ). The displacement of Teo-crepdKorra
£tt] was all the more feasible as elSov ra epya fiov meant for him
the experience of God's punishing indignation. (Tecro-apdKCH'Ta is
better attested than Teo-o-epaKovra. (Moulton, ii. 66) for the first
century.) There is no hint that the writer was conscious of the
rabbinic tradition, deduced from this psalm, that the period of
messiah would last for forty years, still less that he had any idea
of comparing this term with the period between the crucifixion
and 70 a.d. What he really does is to manipulate the LXX text
in order to bring out his idea that the entire forty years in the
desert were a "day of temptation," 6 during which the People
exasperated God. Hence (in v. 9 ) he transfers the " forty years "
to elSok tci epya /xov, in order to emphasize the truth that the
stay of the People in the desert was one long provocation of
God ; for elSov ra epya jxov is not an aggravation of their offence
1 N 04 adds fie (so T), which has crept (needlessly, for -rreipd^eiv may be
used absolutely as in I Co IO 9 ) into the text of Hebrews through k c D c M vg
pesh harkl boh arm Apollin.
2 In some texts of Hebrews (p 18 « A B D* M 33. 424** vg Clem.
Apollin.) this becomes (under the influence of the literal view of forty years?)
TO.VTTJ (iKeivr) in C D c K L P syr sah boh arm eth Eus. Cyril, Chrys ).
3 The Ionic form el7ra (B) has slipped into some texts of Hebrews (A D
33. 206. 489. 128S. 1518. 1836).
4 The LXX is stronger than the Hebrew ; it appears to translate not the
CJ? of the MT, but dSj? (cp. Flashar in Zeits fur alt. VViss., 1912, 84-85).
5 idoKifxacrav (/j.e) is read in the text of Hebrews, by assimilation, in n c D c
K L vg syr arm eth Apollin. Lucifer, Ambr. Chrys. etc. i.e. EAOKI-
MACIA was altered into EAOKIMACA.
6 The Kara in Kara tv\v 7)fxtpav (v. 8 ) is temporal as in I 10 7 s7 , not "after the
manner of" ("secundum," vg).
46 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ill. 9-12.
(" though they felt what I could do for them "), but a reminder
that all along God let them feel how he could punish them for
their disobedience. Finally, their long-continued obstinacy led
him to exclude them from the land of Rest. This " finally "
does not mean that the divine oath of exclusion was pronounced
at the end of the forty years in the desert, but that as the result
of God's experience he gradually killed off (v. 17 ) all those who
had left Egypt. This retribution was forced upon him by the
conviction airol 81 ovk eyvwo-av Ta? oSou's /xov (i.e. would not learn
my laws for life, cared not to take my road).
The rabbinic interpretation of Ps 95 as messianic appears in the legend
(T.B. Sanhedrim, 98a) of R. Joshua ben Levi and Elijah. When the rabbi
was sent by Elijah to messiah at the gates of Rome, he asked, " Lord, when
contest thou?" He answered, " To-day" Joshua returned to Elijah, who
inquired of him : "What said He to thee?^' Joshua: " Peace be with thee,
son of Levi." Elijah: " Thereby He has assured to thee and thy father a
prospect of attaining the world to come." Joshua : "But He has deceived me,
by telling me He would come to-day." Elijah: " Not so, what He meant
was, To-day, if you will hear His voice." The severe view of the fate of the
wilderness-generation also appears in Sanh. 1 \ob, where it is proved that the
generation of the wilderness have no part in the world to come, from Nu
14 s5 and also from Ps 95 (as L swore in my anger that they should not enter
into my Rest). This was rabbi Akilia's stern reading of the text. But
rabbinic opinion, as reflected in the Mishna (cp. W. Bacher, Agada der
Tannailen 2 , i. 135 f. ), varied on the question of the fate assigned to the
generation of Israelites during the forty years of wandering in the desert.
While some authorities took Ps 95 11 strictly, as if the " rest'' meant the rest
after death, and these Israelites were by the divine oath excluded from the
world to come, others endeavoured to minimize the text ; God's oath only
referred to the incredulous spies, they argued, or it was uttered in the haste
of anger and recalled. In defence of the latter milder view Ps 50 5 was
quoted, and Isa 35 10 . Our author takes the sterner view, reproduced later
by Dante (Purgatorio, xviii. 133— 135), for example, who makes the Israelites
an example of sloth ; " the folk for whom the sea opened were dead ere
Jordan saw the heirs of promise." He never speaks of men " tempting God,"
apart from this quotation, and indeed, except in II 17 , God's TreipatTfids or
probation of men is confined to the human life of Jesus.
For 816 in v. 10 Clem. Alex. (Protrept. 9) reads oV 5.
npocrwxOi^ii/ is a LXX term for the indignant loathing excited
by some defiance of God's will, here by a discontented, critical
attitude towards him. In v. 11 KaTdiraucris is used of Canaan as
the promised land of settled peace, as only in Dt 12 9 (ov yap
7/kcitc ... cts tt]v Ka.Ta.ira.v<Tiv) and I K 8 56 (evXoyrjTos Ku'pio?
o"r]fj.epov, os eSw/cev KaTairavcriv tw A.a<5 aurov). The mystical sense
is developed in 4 3f -.
The application (vv. 12f -) opens with pXiireTe (for the classical
opare) jjlt] . . . lorai (as in Col 2 8 (/^A-eVere [xrj . . . cotou), the
reason for the future being probably " because the verb eifd has
no aorist, which is the tense required," Field, Notes on Transla-
tion of N.T., p. 38) iv tici u(iic — the same concern for individuals
III. 12-14.] A WARNING 47
as in 4 11 io 25 12 15 — icapSia aTucrrias (genitive of quality — a
Semitism here). 'Airio-Tia must mean more than "incredulity";
the assonance with a-rroa-TrjiaL was all the more apt as dwia-Tia
denoted the unbelief which issues in action, c^ ™ d-n-offTTJi'ai — the
idea as in Ezk 20 8 koX aTrea-Trjaav air ifxov, kou ovk rjdeXrjaav
elaaKovcraL p.ov, though the preposition diro was not needed, as may
be seen, e.g., in Wis 3 10 (01 . . . rov KvpCov diroo-TavTes). Our
author is fond of this construction, the infinitive with a preposition.
" The living God " suggests what they lose by their apostasy,
and what they bring upon themselves by way of retribution
(io 31 ), especially the latter (cp. 4 12 ). There is no real distinction
between 6eov favros and rov 6eov £wvto9, for the article could be
dropped, as in the case of 0e6s Trarrjp and Kvptos 'Irjo-ovs, once the
expression became stamped and current.
In V. 13 irapaKaXeiTe . . . Ka9' eKdarne Tjfxe'pai' (cp. Test. Levi Q 8
y)v Kad' £ko.o-t7]v rj/xepav o-w(Ti£u)v //.e) emphasizes the keen, constant
care of the community for its members, which is one feature of
the epistle. In dxpis ou (elsewhere in NT with aorist or future),
which is not a common phrase among Attic historians and
orators, dxpis is a Hellenistic form of dxpi (p 13 M) used sometimes
when a vowel followed. Irjp.cpoi' is " God's instant men call
years" (Browning), and the paronomasia in KaXeiTai 1 . . . irapa-
KaXeiTe led the writer to prefer KaXelrai to a term like Krjpvcro-eTai.
The period (see 4 7 ) is that during which God's call and oppor-
tunity still hold out, and the same idea is expressed in iv tw
XeyeCT0ai I^p-epoc ktX. (v. 15 ). e| up.wi' is sufficiently emphatic as it
stands, without being shifted forward before tis (B D K L d e etc.
harkl Theodt. Dam.) in order to contrast ujieis with ol Trcu-epes
ufAu^ (v. 9 ). As for t| dp.apTia, it is the sin of apostasy (1 2 4 ), which
like all sin deceives men (Ro 7 11 ), in this case by persuading them
that they will be better off if they allow themselves to abandon the
exacting demands of God. The responsibility of their position is
expressed in Iva pr\ ctkXtipuvGtj, a passive with a middle meaning ;
men can harden themselves or let lower considerations harden
them against the call of God. As Clement of Alexandria
(Protrept. ix.) explains : opare rrjv dirciXiqv' Spare -rqv TrpoTpoirrjV'
opdre rrjv ripnqv. ti 8// ovv Ztl tyjv X < *P LV € ^ s opyrjv /xeTaXXacrcro/xei' . . . ;
fxeydkr] ydp tt}s €7rayy€Xi'as avrov rj X^P ts i " * av o-rjfxepov r>/s c^wv^s
avrov a.Kova-Q>fj.ev " * to Se (Trjp.epov t?)s (pwvrjs olItov au^erat t?)v r]p.ipav,
eoV dv 7) drjfxepov oVo/xa^rai.
In v. 14 p.eToxoi tou XpiCTToO (which is not an equivalent for the
Pauline ev Xpicrrw, but rather means to have a personal interest
in him) answers to p.eToxoi KXrjo-ews e-n-oupaviou in v. 1 and to
p.eToxous ■nveu'p.crros dyiou in 6 4 ; yeyovamtv betrays the predilection
of the writer for yiyova rather than its equivalent elvai. 'EdVircp
1 The common confusion between at and et led to the variant /caXetre (A C).
48 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [III. 14-19.
an intensive particle (for lav, V.* 5 ) ttjv a.pyr\v ttJs UTrooTdaews
(genitive of apposition) — i.e. " our initial confidence " (the idea
of io 32 ) — KaTderxufief (echoing v. 6 *). The misinterpretation of
oirooTciacus as (Christ's) "substance" 1 led to the addition of
auToO (A 588. 623. 1827. 1912 vg). But wToo-rao-is here as in
it 1 denotes a firm, confident conviction or resolute hope (in
LXX, e.g., Ru I 12 ecrnv fioi twoo-Toum rov ycv^^vai /xc avSpi,
rendering mpn, which is translated by e^iris in Pr n 7 ), with the
associations of steadfast patience under trying discouragements.
This psychological meaning was already current (cp. 2 Co 9 4
fjLt] . . . Ka.Tcu<T)(yv9C)fJLev rjfxeis iv rfj viro(TTa<T€i ravTrj), alongside
of the physical or metaphysical. What a man bases himself on,
as he confronts the future, is his woo-rao-is, which here in sound
and even (by contrast) in thought answers to a.tro<TTr}va.i.
It is possible to regard v. u as a parenthesis, and connect
ec tw Xe'yeo-Gai (v. 15 ) closely with irapaKaXeiTe or Iva fi^j . . .
dpap-rias (v. 13 ), but this is less natural ; iv tw Aeyccr&u (" while it
is said," as in Ps 42* iv t<3 \iyco-6ai) connects easily and aptly
with /cardo-xw/Acv, and vv. 14 - 15 thus carry on positively the thought
of v. 13 , viz. that the writer and his readers are still within the
sound of God's call to his oikos to be 77-10-1-05.
The pointed questions which now follow (vv. 16 ' 18 ) are a
favourite device of the diatribe style. napamitpau'cii' (Hesych
vapopyi^iv) 2 in v. 16 seems to have been coined by the LXX
to express " rebellious " with a further sense of provoking or
angering God ; e.g. Dt 31 2 " irapaTriKpaivovTVi rjre to. 7rp6s tov 6eov
(translating H"ID), and Dt 32 16 iv (38e\vyp.aa-iv avrwv irapeTTLKpavdv
p.e (translating Dya). The sense of " disobey " recurs occasionally
in the LXX psalter (e.g. 104 28 , 106 11 ); indeed the term involves
a disobedience which stirs up the divine anger against rebels,
the flagrant disobedience (cp. -rrapafSaiveiv for mo in Dt i 43 ,
Nu 27 14 ) which rouses exasperation in God. 'A\\', one rhetorical
question being answered by another (as Lk 17 8 ), logically
presupposes iWs, but Ttves must be read in the previous question.
By writing irdfTes the writer does not stop to allow for the faith-
ful minority, as Paul does(i Co io 7f * rives outw). In the grave
conclusion (v. 19 ) 81' dTrioriav (from v. 12 ) is thrown to the end for
the sake of emphasis.
But, the author continues (4 lf> ), the promised rest is still
available; it is open to faith, though only to faith ( 1_8 ). No
matter how certainly all has been done upon God's part ( 3 " 5 ),
and no matter how sure some human beings are to share his
1 Another early error was to regard it as " our substance," so that i) apxv
7-775 vwoaTaaeus meant faith as "the beginning of our true nature" (a view
already current in Chrysostoni).
2 In Dt 32 16 it is parallel to irapo^vvew ; cp. Flashar's discussion in Zeit-
schrift fur alt. fVtss., 1912, 185 f. It does not always require an object (God).
IV. 1.] THE REST OF GOD 49
Rest (v. 6 ), it does not follow that we shall, unless we take warning
by this failure of our fathers in the past and have faith in God.
Such is the urgent general idea of this paragraph. But the
argument is compressed ; the writer complicates it by defining
the divine Rest as the sabbath-rest of eternity, and also by
introducing an allusion to Joshua. That is, he (a) explains
God's /<aTU7rawis in Ps 95 by the o-a/3/3aTio>io5 of Gn 2 2 , and
then (b) draws an inference from the fact that the psalm-promise
is long subsequent to the announcement of the aafifiaTio-fios.
He assumes that there is only one Rest mentioned, the /caTdVavo-is
into which God entered when he finished the work of creation,
to which oi 7raT€pes ifj.wv were called under Moses, and to which
Christians are now called. They must never lose faith in it,
whatever be appearances to the contrary.
1 Well then, as the promise of entrance into his Rest is still left to us, let
us be afraid of anyone being judged to have missed it. 2 For ( koX yap = etenim )
we have had the good news as well as they (e/ce?i'ot = 3 8 " 19 ) ; only, the message
they heard was of no use to them, because it did not meet with faith in the
hearers. s For we do " enter the Rest " by our faith : according to his word,
" As /swore in my anger,
they shall never enter my Rest " —
although "his works " were all over by the foundation of the it orld. * For he
says somewhere about the seventh (sc. rjntpas) day : "And God rested from all
his works on the seventh day." 5 And again in this (iv tovt^i, sc. t6tt^)
passage, "they shall never enter my Rest." B Since then it is reserved
(diroXei-rreTai, a variant for KaraXenr, v. 1 ) for some "to enter it," and since
those who formerly got the good news failed to ' ' enter " owing to their disobedi-
ence? ''he again fixes a day ; " today " — as he says in " David" after so long
an interval, and as has been already quoted:
" Today, when you hear his voice,
harden not your hearts."
8 Thus if Joshua had given them Rest, God would not speak later about another
day. There is a sabbath- Nest, then, reserved (airoXti-rreTai, as in 6 ) still for
the People of God {for once "a man enters his {avrov, i.e. God's) rest," he
" rests from work" just as God did).
'E-n-ayycXia (v. 1 ) is not common in the LXX, though it mis-
translates map in Ps 56 s , and is occasionally the term for a
human promise. In the Prayer of Manasseh ( 6 ) it is the divine
promise (to IAcos rr)s cVayyeAtas <rov), and recurs in the plural,
of the divine promises, in Test. Jos. 20 1 (6 Oebs 7roirjaeL tt)v
ii<$LKr](Tiv ifxCjv /cat tVa^ei v//as eis Tas £7rayye-\.i'as twv irarepwv
Vfiwv) and Ps. Sol I2 8 (00-101 KrpCov KX-qporofX-qaatev eVuyycAi'as
xvpiov — the first occurrence of this phrase *A. iw., cp. below on
6 12 ). KaTaXei-n-OfieVTjs eiravyeXias (+1-775 D* 255, from 6 15 - 17 n 9 )
is a genitive absolute. 'ETrayyeXtas eiaeXOeli^like opp-r) . . . vfipicrai
in Ac 14 5 ) ktX. : the basis of the appeal is (a) that the divine
promise of Rest has been neither fulfilled nor withdrawn (still to
" cr-qfiepov " /caXetTat) ; and (b) that the punishment which befalls
1 'A7rei0eiae, altered into airia-riav by K* vg sah boh arm Cyr.
50 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IV. 1, 2.
others is a warning to ourselves (cp. Philo, ad Gaium, i : ai yap
kreptiiv TLfX-wpcaL /JeArioDou tous 7roAAoi;s, <po(3u) tov /at) Trapair\r)0~ia
■n-aOdv). By a well-known literary device pj wotc, like p.rj in
12 15 , takes a present (8okjj), instead of the more usual aorist,
subjunctive. Aoktj means "judged" or "adjudged," as in
Josephus, Ant. viii. 32, ko.v dWorpLov 8oKr). This is common in
the LXX, e.g. in Pr 17 28 ivebv 84 tis ecurrov -n-oir/o-as So£ei cppoVi/xo?
elvai (where So£ei is paralleled by Aoyicr#r/o-eTai), 27 14 (Ka.Tapwp.evov
ov8kv 8ia.<pepeiv 80'fei) ; indeed it is an ordinary Attic use which
goes back to Plato (e.g. Phaedo, 113 D, of the souls in the under-
world, 01 pXv av Sd£cocri p.£o~(D<; (3e/3i<j)Kevcu) and Demosthenes
(629. 17, ol 8e8oyp.£voL av8po(f>6voi = the convicted murderers).
The searching scrutiny which passes this verdict upon lack of
faith is the work of the divine Logos (in v. 12 ).
In v. 2 euriyyeWfAeVoi is remarkable. Our author, who never
uses €vayy£\i.ov (preferring eVayycAia here as an equivalent),
employs the passive of cuayyeAi'^eu' l (as in v. 6 ) in the broad sense
of " having good news brought to one." The passive occurs in
LXX of 2 S 18 31 (euayyeAicr^ro) 6 /cu'pios p\ov 6 /?acnAeus) and in
Mt 1 1 6 (7ttw^o1 €uayyeAi£ovrai). The /cai after KaOdirep emphasizes
as usual the idea of correspondence. The reason for the failure
of the past generation was that they merely heard what God
said, and did not believe him ; 6 \6yos ttj? &kotjs (cikotjs, passive
= " sermo auditus," vg), which is another (see 3 12 ) instance of the
Semitic genitive of quality, is defined as jul-i^ (causal particle as
in II 27 /at) <£o/?ti0€i's) o , uyic€K(e)pa(o-)p.ei'os ttj morei tois dKouaaaic,
since it did not get blended with faith in (the case of) those who
heard it. Or rrj ttio-t(.i may be an instrumental dative : " since it
did not enter vitally into the hearers by means of the faith which
it normally awakens in men." The fault lies, as in the parable
of the Sower, not with the message but with the hearers. The
phrase Aoyos . . . o-vy KtKpa.a-p.lvo>; may be illustrated from Men-
ander (Stob. Serm. 42, p. 302), rrjv tov Xoyov p.ev 8vvap.iv ovk
iiri<pdovov 7)6(.l 8e xpr)o~Toj o~vyKeKpap.evr]v lx etv > an0 - Plutarch, non
posse suauiter vivi secundum Epicurum, 1101, ySe'Ariov yap Ivvirdp-
X €tv Tt koX o~vyKi.Kpao-dat ttj Trepl 6eu>v 86£r] kolvov cuSous ko.1 <pofiov
7ru^os ktA. The use of Aoyos with such verbs is illustrated by
Plutarch, Fit. C/eom. 2 (6 8k Stohkos Aoyos . . . /3d0ei Se ko.1
Trpdiii Kepavvvp.ivo'i yfda. p.d\io~Ta ets to oiKtlov ayaBbv €7rtSiSu)0"iv).
Kpacris occurs in Philo's definition of oSiAia (Quaest. in Gen. 2 18 )
as consisting [ovk] iv tw xP eL( *>& €l p-aXXov rj Kpdaet. ko.1 crvp.<p<iivia
fitfiaio) rwv rj9u)v, and cnry/cc/cpuo-flai in his description of the
union of spirit and blood in the human body (Quaest. in
Gen. 9 4 TTV(.vp.a . . . ip.<pepecr6ai kou crvy KeKpaa 6 ai a"p.ari).
1 An almost contemporary instance (euayye\l?oi>Ti rk rrjs veiKrjs avrov nal
wpoKoirrjs) of the active verb is cited by Mitteis-Wilcken, i. 2. 29.
IV. 3, 4.] THE REST OF GOD 5 I
The original reading <TvyKeK(e)pa(<r)fiivos (k 114 vt pesh Lucif.) was soon
assimilated (after tuelvovs) into the accusative -oi»s (p 13 A BCDKL M P vg
boh syr hkl etc. Chrys. Theod.-Mops. Aug.), and this led to the alteration of
rots &Kov<ra<riv into rwv 6.kov<to.vtu)v (D* 104. 1611. 2005 d syr llklm e Lucif.),
or roh aKovadelaiv (1912 vg Theod.-Mops. ), or tols aKovavtnv (1891). The
absence of any allusion elsewhere to the faithful minority (Caleb, Joshua)
tells decisively against uvyKeKpaaiiivovs ("since they did not mix with the
believing hearers J ; for the writer (see above) never takes them into account,
and, to make any sense, this reading implies them. How could the majority
be blamed for not associating with believing hearers when ex hypothesi there
were none such ?
The writer now (vv. 3-10 ) lays emphasis upon the reality of
the Rest. " We have had this good news too as well as they,"
for (yap) we believers do enter into God's Rest ; it is prepared
and open, it has been ready ever since the world began — apa
d-rfoXeiTreTai CTaj3|3aTi.o-u6s tw Xaw tou 0eou. Eto-epxofieSa is the
emphatic word in v. 3 : " we do (we are sure to) enter," the futuristic
present (" ingrediemur," vg). When God excluded that unbe-
lieving generation from his Rest, he was already himself in his
Rest. The Kcu-di-jrauo-is was already in existence ; the reason
why these men did not gain entrance was their own unbelief, not
any failure on God's part to have the Rest ready. Long ago it
had been brought into being (this is the force of kcutoi in v. 3 ),
for what prevents it from being realized is not that any tpya. of
God require still to be done. KaTdVawis is the sequel to epya.
The creative epya leading up to this KaTdVawis have been com-
pleted centuries ago ; God enjoys his KaTdVauo-is, and if his
People do not, the fault lies with themselves, with man's disbelief.
Here, as in Ro 3 s8 , there is a choice of reading between odv (» A C M
1908 boh) and yap (p ]3 B D K L P * 6. 33 lat syr hkl eth Chrys. Lucif.
etc.) ; the colourless 84 (syrP esh arm) may be neglected. The context is de-
cisive in favour of yap. Probably the misinterpretation which produced otv
led to the change of elaepx^fJ-eda into elcrepxv/u.eda * (A C 33. 69* : future in
vg sah boh Lucif.). The insertion of r-qv (the first) may be due to the same
interpretation, but not necessarily; p 13 B D* om., but B omits the article
sometimes without cause (e.g. 7 15 ). The omission of el (p 13 D* 2. 330. 440.
623. 642. 1288. 1319. 1912) was due to the following el in elcreXevaovTai.
Kcutoi (with gen. absol., as OP. 89s 26 ) is equivalent here to
/caiTotye for which it is a v. I. in Ac 17 27 (A E, with ptc). " Katroi,
ut antiquiores KcuVep, passim cum participio iungunt scriptores
aetatis hellenisticae " (Herwerden, Appendix Lexici Graea, 249).
KaTaf3o\rj is not a LXX term, but appears in Ep. Aristeas, 1 29
and 2 Mac 2 29 (t^s oA?;s KaraySoX^s = the entire edifice); in the
NT always, except He n 11 , in the phrase cbrd or -n-po KaTa/3oX^s
KOCTfXOV.
The writer then (v. 4 ) quotes Gn 2 2 , inserting 6 0eos iv (exactly
as Philo had done, de poster. Caini, 18), as a proof that the Kcrni-
1 A similar error of A C in 6 J .
52 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IV. 5-8.
irauffts had originated immediately after the six days of creation.
In €ipr]K€ ttou the irou is another literary mannerism (as in Philo);
instead of quoting definitely he makes a vague allusion (cp. 2 6 ).
The psalm-threat is then (v. 5 ) combined with it, and (v. 6 ) the
deduction drawn, that the threat (v. 7 ) implies a promise (though
not as if v. 1 meant, " lest anyone imagine he has come too late
for it" — an interpretation as old as Schottgen, and still advo-
cated, e.g., by Dods).
The title of the 92nd psalm, " for the sabbath-day," was discussed
about the middle of the 2nd century by R. Jehuda and R. Nehemia ; the
former interpreted it to mean the great Day of the world to come, which
was to be one perfect sabbath, but R. Nehemia's rabbinical tradition pre-
ferred to make it the seventh day of creation on which God rested (see W.
Bacher's Agada der Tannaitetr, i. pp. 328-329). The author of the Epistle
of Barnabas (15) sees the fulfilment of Gn 2 2 in the millennium : "he rested
on the seventh day" means that "when his Son arrives he will destroy the
time of the lawless one, and condemn the impious, and alter sun and moon
and stars ; then he will really rest on the seventh day," and Christians cannot
enjoy their rest till then. Our author's line is different — different even from
the Jewish interpretation in the Vita Adae et Evae (li. 1), which makes the
seventh day symbolize " the resurrection and the rest of the age to come ; on
the seventh day the Lord rested from all his works. "
In v. 7 fxcTa Too-ouTor \p6vov, like fic-rct TauTa (v. 8 ), denotes the
interval of centuries between the desert and the psalm of David,
for ef AaueiS means "in the psalter" (like Iv 'HAta, Ro n 2 ) ; the
95th psalm is headed alvos w8r}s ra AavetS in the Greek bible,
but the writer throughout (3 7f ) treats it as a direct, divine word.
npoeipr)Ttu (the author alluding to his previous quotation) is the
original text (p 13 A C D* P 6. 33. 1611. 1908. 2004. 2005 lat
syr Chrys. Cyr. Lucif.) ; irpoeipiqKzv (B 256. 263. 436. 442. 999.
1739. 1837 arm sah boh Orig.) suggests that God or David
spoke these words before the oath (v. 7 comes before v. 11 !), while
tlprjTai (D c K L eth etc. Theophyl.) is simply a formula of
quotation. From the combination of Ps 95 7 - 8 with Ps 95 11 and
Gn 2 2 (vv. 3 " 7 ) the practical inference is now drawn (v. 8f -). Like
Sirach (46** 2 Kparaios iv 7roA.ep.01s 'I^amis Nav?7 . . . os iyevero
Kara to ovop.a avrov p.eyas iir\ ocoTripitt e/cAeKTaii' avrov), Philo (de
mutatione notmnum, 21, 'I??crov? 8k [ep/r^veJerai] crwrrjpia KvpCov,
€$€(!)<; ovofxa tt}? dpio-His) had commented on the religious signifi-
cance of the name Joshua; but our author ignores this, and
even uses the name 'It/o-ous freely, since 'I^o-oCs is never applied
by him to Christ before the incarnation (Aquila naturally avoids
"I^o-oDs and prefers 'Iwcrova). The author of Ep. Barnabas plays
on the fact that "Joshua" and "Jesus" are the same names:
eA7rt'o"aT€ Ittl tov iv (rapKi fieWovTa (fjavepovadai Vjxiv 'lrjaovv (6 9 ),
i.e. not on the " Jesus " who led Israel into the land of rest, but
on the true, divine "Joshua." Such, he declares, is the inner
IV. 8-10.] THE REST OF GOD 53
meaning of Is 28 16 (os iXiriaei iir avrov ^crerai cis tov aiaJia).
But the author of II/>ds 'E/fyaidus takes his own line, starting from
the transitive use of KaTcnrnueii' (Jos I 13 Kvpios 6 0€os v/xwv ko.t£-
■n-avcrtv vuas kou eStoKev vp.lv ttjv yr]v ravr-qv, etc.) ; not that he
reads subtle meanings into the transitive and intransitive usages
of Ka.Taira.veiv, like Philo. Nor does he philosophize upon the
relevance of Ka-raTravo-is to God. Philo, in De Cherubim (26),
explains why Moses calls the sabbath {jkp pnqveviTai 8' di'U7ravo-is)
the "sabbath of God" in Ex 20 10 etc.; the only thing which
really rests is God — "rest (di/a7raiAai/) meaning not inactivity
in good (a-n-pa^iav KaAwv) — for the cause of all things which is
active by nature never ceases doing what is best, but — an energy
devoid of laboriousness, devoid of suffering, and moving with
absolute ease." The movement and changes of creation point
to labour, but "what is free from weakness, even though it
moves all things, will never cease to rest : ware oiKtioTOTaTov
fjiovw 0e<2 to avairavzo-Oai." So in De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, 8,
tov Toaovrov Koa/xov avev ttoVcdv 7rdAcu fikv €ipyd£«TO, vvvl oe kou
eio-aci <rwcYG>V ovSeVoTe Arjyct [cp. He I 3 cpepwv re ra 7rdi'Ta], ^ca!
yap to a.Kdp.aTov dp/AoStwrarov. All such speculations are remote
from our author. He simply assumes (a) that God's promise of
KaTa7ravcris is spiritual ; it was not fulfilled, it was never meant
to be fulfilled, in the peaceful settlement of the Hebrew clans
in Canaan ; (b) as a corollary of this, he assumes that it is
eschatological.
In v. 9 apa, as in 12 8 , Lk n 48 , Ac n 18 , Ro 10 17 , is thrown to
the beginning by an unclassical turn ("miisste dem gebildeten
Hellenen hochgradig anstossig erscheinen," Radermacher, 20).
laPPctTiCTfios, apparently x a word coined by the writer, is a Sem-
itic-Greek compound. The use of o-a/8/3aTio-/i.os for KaTairaucris is
then (v. 10 ) justified in language to which the closest parallel is
Apoc 14 13 . "Rest" throughout all this passage — and the writer
never refers to it again — is the blissful existence of God's faithful
in the next world. As a contemporary apocalyptist put it, in
4 Es 8 52 : "for you paradise is opened, the tree of life planted,
the future age prepared, abundance made ready, a City built, a
Rest appointed " (naTeo-raOr] ?). In dir6 twc lhi(t)V, as in Bid too
loi'ou ai'u.aTos (13 12 ), tSios is slightly emphatic owing to the context;
it is not quite equivalent to the possessive pronoun.
When Maximus of Tyre speaks of life as a long, arduous path to the goal
of bliss and perfection, he describes in semi-mystical language how tired
souls, longing for the land to which this straight and narrow and little-
frequented way leads, at length reach it and "rest from their labour"
(Dissert, xxiii.).
1 The only classical instance is uncertain ; Bernadakis suspects it in the
text of Plutarch, de supersiit. 166 A.
54 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IV. 11, 12.
The lesson thus drawn from the reading of the OT passages
is pressed home (vv. 11-13 ) with a skilful blend of encouragement
and warning.
11 Let us be eager then to "enter that Rest," in case anyone falls into the
same sort of disobedience. 12 For the Logos of God is a living thing, active
and more cutting than any sword with double edge, penetrating to the very
division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow — scrutinizing the very thoughts
and conceptions of the heart. 13 And no created thing is hidden from him ;
all things lie open and exposed before the eyes of him with whom we have to
reckon (6 \6yos).
In v. 11 the position of tis, as, e.g., in Lk i8 18 , is due to "the
tendency which is to be noted early in Greek as well as in cognate
languages, to bring unemphasized (enclitic) pronouns as near to
the beginning of the sentence as possible" (Blass, § 473. 1).
For lUTTTCU' iv, Cp. Epict. Hi. 2 2. 48, 7TOT6 fytoiv elSiv (JL€ TtS . . .
iv cKKXtVet TrepiiTLTrTovTa. This Hellenistic equivalent for iriirreiv
cts goes back to earlier usage, e.g. Eurip. Here. 1091, 1092,
iv kXvSlovi kcu <ppevwv Tapd.yp.arL 7re7rTa>Ka. Seti'aJ. In Hellenistic
Greek vTr68eiyp,a came to have the sense of 7rapa&eiy/j.a, and is
used here loosely for " kind " or " sort " ; take care of falling into
disobedience like that of which these Traripes vp.£>v yield such a
tragic example. The writer, with his fondness for periphrases of
this kind, writes iv tw auTw u-rroSeiyfiaTi tt]? aimGeias, where iv rfj
airfj airuOua would have served. In passing away from the text
about Rest, he drops this last warning reference to the classLal
example of direiQua in the far past of the People.
The connexion of thought in vv. llf - is suggested by what has
been already hinted in v. 1 , where the writer pled for anxiety, /i.77
7Tore So/07 tis i$ vp,wv vo-reprjKivai. He repeats iva p.7] . . . tis
. . . irlarj, and enlarges upon what lies behind the term Sokjj.
Then, after the passage on the relentless scrutiny of the divine
Logos, he effects a transition to the direct thought of God (v. 13 ),
with which the paragraph closes. ZirouSdawfiei' — we have to put
heart and soul into our religion, for we are in touch with a God
whom nothing escapes ; l&v ydp ktX. (v. 12 ). The term £u>v echoes
0e6s £o>v in 3 12 (men do not disobey God with impunity), just as
KapSi'as echoes /capSta irovrjpa airicrTias. God is swift to mark any
departure from his will in human thought — the thought that
issues in action.
The personifying of the divine Xoyos, in a passage which
described God in action, had already been attempted. In Wis
18 15 , for example, the plagues of Egypt are described as the effect
of God's Aoyos coming into play : 6 iravToSvvap.o'i crov Adyos a7r'
ovpavwv . . . £t(pos 6£v ttjv avviroKpLTuV iirLTay-qv crov (pepwv. In
Wis i 6 , again, the (ptXdvdpwn-ov irvevp.a a-ofpia, which cannot
tolerate blasphemy, reacts against it : on rdv veeppwv avrov (the
blasphemer) p.dprv<i 6 6e6%, kcu tt}s /capStas avrov £7rto-/co7ros giAt/^s,
IV. 12.] THE SCRUTINY OF GOD 55
so that no muttering of rebellion is unmarked. Here the writer
poetically personifies the revelation of God for a moment. 'O
Adyos tou 6eov is God speaking, and speaking in words which
are charged with doom and promise (3 7f *)- The revelation, how-
ever, is broader than the scripture ; it includes the revelation of
God's purpose in Jesus (i lf> ). The free application of 6 Adyos
(tov deov) in primitive Christianity is seen in i P i 23f -, Ja i 18f -,
quite apart from the specific application of the term to the
person of Christ (Jn i 1 " 18 ). Here it denotes the Christian gospel
declared authoritatively by men like the writer, an inspired
message which carries on the OT revelation of God's promises
and threats, and which is vitally effective. No dead letter, this
Adyos ! The rhetorical outburst in vv. 12f - is a preacher's equiva-
lent for the common idea that the sense of God's all-seeing
scrutiny should deter men from evil-doing, as, e.g., in Plautus
(Captivi, ii. 2. 63, "est profecto deu', qui quae nos gerimus
auditque et uidet "). This had been deepened by ethical writers
like Seneca (Ep. lxxxiii. 1, "nihil deo clusum est, interest animis
nostris et cogitationibus mediis intervenit "), Epictetus (ii. 14. 11,
ovk tern XaOelv avrbv ov /xovov ttolovvto. dAA ov8k oiavoovp,€vov 77
ii'dv/xovfxevov), and the author of the Epistle of Arts teas (132-133 :
Moses teaches otl p.dvos 6 #€o's io-Ti . . . kcu ov8kv avrov Aav^avci
twv iirl yrj<; yivop-cvaov vif av6pw7rwv Kpu<£«os . . . kolv ivvorjOfj tis
kolkiolv imreXeiVf ovk av XaOoi, fir/ on /cat 7rpa£as, and 210: the
characteristic note of piety is to 8ia\a[A.ftaveiv on iravTa Biairavrbs 6
#eos ivepyei kcu yivcocTKei, ko.1 ovdzv av X6.601 clSlkov Troikas rj kolkov
epya.crap.evos ai'#pa)7ros), as well as by apocalyptists like the author
of Baruch (83 s : He will assuredly examine the secret thoughts
and that which is laid up in the secret chambers of all the
members of man). But our author has one particular affinity.
Take Philo's interpretation of SieiAev avra pe'cra in Gn 15 10 .
Scripture means, he explains (quis rer. div. haeres, 26) that it
was God who divided them, to) ropiei tu crup.7ravTcuv kavTov Aoyw,
os eis tyjv 6£vTaTr]v aKovrjd els a.K/jir]v Siaipwv otiSeVoTe A^yei. to. yap
alo-Orjra. travra irrtihav P-*XP l T ^ v ciTopwv Kai Aeyop.eVcuv afxepwv
$ie£e\8r], 7raAiv a.Trb tovt<dv to. Adya) dewprjTa. eis ap.v6r)TOV$ Kal
airepiypa<pov<i pvoipas ap^eTai Siaipeiv ovtos 6 Top.eus. He returns
(in 48) to this analytic function of the Logos in God and man,
and in De mutatione nominum (18) speaks of y)Kovr\p.ivov koI 6£vv
Adyov, p.ao-Teveiv ko.1 avatprjTelv 2/cao-ra i/cavdv. Still, the Logos is
Top.evs as the principle of differentiation in the universe, rather
than as an ethical force ; and when Philo connects the latter with
6 Adyos, as he does in quod deter, pot. 29, Cherub. 9, etc., 6 Adyos
is the human faculty of reason. Obviously, our author is using
Philonic language rather than Philonic ideas.
'E^epyiis (for which B, by another blunder, has iva.pyrjs =
56 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IV. 12.
evidens) is not a LXX term, but denotes in Greek vital activity
(cp. Schol. on Soph. Oed. Tyr. 45, £uio-as avrl t'vcpyco-Tepas).
Neither is ropwrepos a LXX term ; the comparison of 6 Aoyos to
a sword arose through the resemblance between the tongue and
a "dagger," though fid^aipa had by this time come to mean a
sword of any size, whether long (pop<paia) or short. 1 The com-
parative is followed (cp. Lk 16 8 ) by vnip, as elsewhere by trapa,
and the "cutting" power of 6 Ao'yos extends or penetrates to the
innermost recesses of human nature — axpi pepicrpou <J>uxtjs icai
■jrveu'paTos, 2 dpfj.a>y re kcu pueXoic (the conj. /j.t\wv = limbs is neat
but superfluous, for pve\Q)v was in the text known to Clem.
Alex, quis dives, 41). D K here (as in 1 i 32 ) insert te before the
first Kat, but there is no idea of distinguishing the psychical and
the physical spheres ; dpp,wv . . . p.ve\wv is merely a metaphorical
equivalent for ^'x^s K al Trvtvp-aTos. Mepio-p.os (only in LXX in
Jb 11 23 , 2 Es 6 18 ) means here "division," not "distribution" (2*) ;
the subtlest relations of human personality, the very border-line
between the i/'ux 7 ? an ^ the irvevfia, all this is open to 6 Aoyos. The
metaphorical use of p.ve\wv in this sense is as old as Euripides,
who speaks of p.r/ irpos aKpov p.ve\6v t/'t'X'?? {Hippolytus, 255).
According to Philo (De Cherubim, 8. 9), the flaming sword of Gn 3 24 is a
symbol either of the sun, as the swiftest of existences (circling the whole
world in a single day), or of reason, d^vKiv-qroraTov yap Kai 6ipjj.ov Xdyos kclI
/xdXicrra 6 tou alriov. Learn from the fiery sword, o my soul, he adds,
to note the presence and power of this divine Reason, 8s ovd^wore X^yei
Kivovfxevos crwovSrj iraffTj irpbs a'ipecnv fikv tQiv kclKQiv, (piyrjv 5Z tQiv ivavrluv.
But there is a still better parallel to the thought in Lucian's account of the
impression made by the address (6 Xoyos) of a philosopher : oil yap ei; dTriiroXrjs
ovo' ujs ihrvxev i]fi.uii> 6 Xdyos nad'acero, fiadela 5k Kai tcaipios 7) TrXrjyri iyivero,
Kai fxdXa evaroxus ive\6els 6 Xdyos aiir-qv, ei oZ6v re eiirelv, d^Ko^pe rrjv ^vxv v
[Nify. 35). Only, Lucian proceeds to compare the soul of a cultured person
to a target at which the words of the wise are aimed. Similarly, in pseudo-
Phocylides, 124: 6-rrXov roi Xdyos dvSpl TOfxdrrepov iari. <nb~-qpov, and Od. Sol.
12 5 : for the swiftness of the Word is inexpressible, and like its expression is
its swiftness and force, and its course knows no limit.
The pepicrpou . . . pueXwc passage is " a mere rhetorical
accumulation of terms to describe the whole mental nature of
man" (A. B. Davidson); the climax is /mpoYa, for what underlies
human failure is KapSla -irov-qpa d7rio-rias (3 12 ), and the writei's
warning all along has been against hardening the heart, i.e.
obdurate disobedience. Hence the point of Kai Kpinxos ktA.
Kpn-iKo's is another of his terms which are classical, not religious ;
it is used by Aristotle (Eth. A T ik. vi. 10) of rj o-vreo-is, the in-
telligence of man being Kpn-i*?; in the sense that it discerns. If
: The description was familiar to readers of the LXX, e.g. Pr 5 4 rjKovt)/juti>ov
HaXXov /iaxtttpas oiardfiov.
2 The subtlety of thought led afterwards to the change of irvajfj-aros into
adifiaros (2. 38. 257. 547. 1245).
IV. 12, 13.] THE SCRUTINY OF GOD 57
there is any distinction between ivQvix^vew (ivOvprjo-cws C* D* W
vt Lucifer) and iwoiwv, it is between impulses and reflections,
but contemporary usage hardly distinguished them ; indeed
Iwoia could mean "purpose" as well as "conception." The two
words are another alliterative phrase for "thought and con-
ception," Zwoia, unlike evOvp.r}cri<;, being a LXX term.
In v. 13 tea! ouk eCTTik KTicris d<}>anrjs ktA., ktio-is means anything
created (as in Ro 8 39 ), and au-rou is " God's." The negative side
is followed by the positive, TrdeTa 8e yupLkd tea! T€TpaxT]Xia/i.6Va.
The nearest verbal parallel is in En g 5 irdvTa ivwrnov <rov cf>avepa ko.\
aKaXvTTTa, where the context points as here to secret sins. The
general idea was familiar; e.g. (above, p. 55) "nihil deo clusum
est, interest animis nostris et cogitationibus mediis intervenit."
Mdvo) yap e^ccrri #€w, vjv\yv iSeiv (Philo, de Abrahamo, 21). But
what the writer had in mind was a passage like that in de Cherub.
5, where Philo explains Dt 29 29 (rd npim-rd xvpiw tw 0e<p, rd Se
(pavepd yeviaret yvujpi/xa) by arguing, yevT/TOS Be ovBels t/cavos yvw/Arjs
dcpai'ovs Kanociv lv6vp.-q /xa, p.6vo<; 8e 6 #eo's. Hence, he adds, the
injunction (Nu 5 18 ) ttjv ij/vx^v u ivavriov tov Oeov a-rrjcrat." with
head uncovered ; which means, the soul to K€(pdXaiov &6yp.a yvp.vw-
Oelcrav kcu tt]v yvwpurjv tj K€\prjTaL a.Traft(pLaa8elcrav, Iv oi,'/€0"t rai? aKpi-
^ccrrdTats iTriKpideicra tov aSexdcrTOV 8eov kt\., the closing description
of God being tw p.6vo) yvp.vrjv i//u^v IBeiv hwcifxivw. For yv/xvd
see also M. Aurel. I 2 2 6 ftebs -n-avra rd rjye/xovLKa yvfivd twv vXlkSjv
dyyeiwy . . . 6p<£. TeTpaxT]Xio"(A£Va must mean something similar,
"exposed" or "bared" ("aperta," vg; ir£<pavzpwp.£va, Hesych.).
Though rpaxv^^ does not occur in the LXX, the writer was familiar with
it in Philo, where it suggests a wrestler "downing" his opponent by seizing
his throat. How this metaphorical use of throttling or tormenting could yield
the metaphorical passive sense of " exposed," is not easy to see. 'i he Philonic
sense of "depressed" or "bent down" would yield here the meaning
"abashed," i.e. hanging down the head in shame (" conscientia male factorum
in ruborem aguntur caputque mittunt," Wettstein). But this is hardly on a
level with yv/xvd. The most probable clue is to be found in the practice of
exposing an offender's face by pushing his head back, as if the word were an
equivalent for the Latin "resupinata" in the sense of " manifesta." The
bending back of the neck produced this exposure. Thus when Vitellius was
dragged along the Via Sacra to be murdered, it was " reducto coma capite,
ceu noxii solent, atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ut visendam
praeberet faciem " (Suet. Vit. Vitell. 17).
In the last five words, irpos ov ^p.if 6 \oyos, which are impressive
by their bare simplicity, there is a slight play on the term Ao'yos
here and in v. 12 , although in view of the flexible use of the term,
e.g. in 5 11 and 13 17 , it might be even doubtful if the writer intended
more than a verbal assonance. The general sense of the phrase
is best conveyed by " with whom we have to reckon." (a) This
rendering, "to whom we have to account (or, to render our ac-
count)," was adopted without question by the Greek fathers from
58 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IV. 13, 14.
Chrysostom (aura) peAAopev Sovvai evOvvas Ttov Treirpayfjicvoiv) on-
wards, and the papyri support the origin of the phrase as a com-
mercial metaphor; e.g. OP. n88 5 (a.d. 13) <I>s 7rp6s o-e tov trepl
tu>v dyi'OTyf^eVTtov] ^[rTy/xaros] €cro[/AeVov] (sc. \6yov), and Hibeh
Papyri, 53* (246 B.C.) ireipC) ovv do-crjoAws o>s 77730s o-e tov Adyov
lo-ojxivov. (/;) The alternative rendering, "with whom we have to
do," has equal support in Gk. usage ; e.g. in the LXX phrase Adyos
pot 777305 o~e(i K 2 14 , 2 K 9 5 ) and in Jg 17 7 (pa/epdv etcriv StScoviW,
Kin Adyov ou/c l^oucrtv 77730s avdpuTrov). The former idea is pre-
dominant, however, as the context suggests (cp. Ignat. ad Magn. 3,
to Se toiovtov ov 77730s crdp/ca 6 Adyos, dAAct 77736s 6c6v tov to. Kpvcpia
etSoVa), and includes the latter. It is plainly the view of the
early anti-Marcionite treatise, which has been preserved among
the works of Ephraem Syrus (cp. Preuschen, Zeitschrift fur die
neutest. Wissenschaft, 191 1, pp. 243-269), where the passage is
quoted from a text like this : ws /cat 6 IlaOAos Aeyet, £wv 6 Adyos
tov 9zov /cat Topwrcpos V7T€p iraaav pd^atpav Storopov, Sti'/cvovpevov
peX 01 HtpLo-jxov TTV€VjxaTO<i /cat crap/co?, ^\P L dpptwv re /cat pueAiov,
/cat /cpirt/cds ccttiv ivdv/xiycretDv /cat ivvoiwv /capSias" /cat ou/c ccrrtv
KTtcrts d<pavr>s ivwTTiov avTOV, dAAd tto-vto. i/xepavfj £vto7rtov avTov, on
yv/xvol /cat Terpa^rfXtafxivoi ecrpev Iv tois dc/>#aApots avrov 1/caoTOS
rjfxwv Adyov air<2 d7roStSdvat. The rendering, " who is our subject,
of whom we are speaking " (77730? = with reference to, and 17p.1v 6
Adyos as in 5 11 ), is impossibly flat.
At this point the writer effects a transition to the main theme,
which is to occupy him till io 18 , i.e. Christ as dpxiepeu's. He begins,
however, by a practical appeal (vv. 14 " 16 ) which catches up the
ideas of 2 17 - 18 3 1 .
u As we have a great highpriest, then, who has passed through the heavens,
Jestis the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession ; 1B for ours is no high
priest who is incapable (fiy 5w. as in 9 9 ) of sympathizing with our weaknesses,
but one who has been templed in every respect like ourselves (sc. irpbs rj/xds), yet
without sinning. 16 So let us approach the throne of grace with confidence
(yuera wapprjaias, 3 6 ), that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in
the hour of need.
Me'yas is a favourite adjective for dpxtepcus in Philo, 1 but when
the writer adds, e^ovTes ovv dp^iepea pe'yav SicAT/Au^OTa Toiis
oupavous, he is developing a thought of his own. The greatness
of Jesus as dp^upeu's consists in his access to God not through
any material veil, but through the upper heavens ; he has pene-
trated to the very throne of God, in virtue of his perfect self-
sacrifice. This idea is not elaborated till later (cp. 6 19f - 9 24f< ), in
the sacerdotal sense. But it has been already mentioned in 2 9 - 10 ,
where Jesus the Son of God saves men by his entrance into the
full divine glory. KpaTtopev here as in 6 18 with the genitive
1 6 fiiv drj /ie'7<xs apxtepevs (de Somn. i. 38), even of the Logos.
IV. 14-16.] THE SYMPATHY OF JESUS 59
(6/i.oAoyias, see 3 1 ) ; in Paul it takes the accusative. The writer
now (v. 15 ) reiterates the truth of 2 llf - ; the exalted Jesus is well
able to sympathize with weak men on earth, since he has shared
their experience of temptation. It is put negatively, then posi-
tively. lujunraGrjcrcH is used of Jesus * as in Acta Pauli et Theclae,
17 (os fxovo<; avveTrdOrjcrev 7rAava>/A£i'u> koct/uw) ; see below, on IO 34 .
Origen (in Matt. xiii. 2) quotes a saying of Jesus : 8id tois dadev-
ouvras rjadivovv ko\ Sia tows 7reiJ'a>vTas tVei'vcov kol 01a tous otij/wi'Tas
iStywv, the first part of which may go back to Mt 8 17 (airros Tas
ao-devuas t\a/3er) ; cp. also Mt 25 35f \ Philo uses the term even
of the Mosaic law (de spec. leg. ii. 13, t<S 8e aTr6pu>% I^ovti <rwe-
irdd-rjcre), but here it is more than " to be considerate." The aid
afforded by Jesus as dpxupevs is far more than official ; it is
inspired by fellow-feeling tcus avQeveicus Tjp.wi'. "Verius sentiunt
qui simul cum externis aerumnis comprehendunt animi affectus,
quales sunt metus, tristitia, horror mortis, et similes" (Calvin).
These a<r6£vuai are the sources of temptation. 'H crap£ dcr^tv^s,
as Jesus had said to his disciples, warning them against tempta-
tion. Jesus was tempted Kara. 7rdvTa (2 17,18 ) Ka0' ojxoioTTjTa (a
psychological Stoic term; the phrase occurs in OP. ix. 1202 24
and BGU. 1028 15 , in second-century inscriptions) x w P ts d/xapTias,
without yielding to sin. Which is a real ground for encourage-
ment, for the best help is that afforded by those who have stood
where we slip and faced the onset of temptation without yielding
to it. The special reference is to temptations leading to apostasy
or disobedience to the will of God. It is true that x^P^ a/*a/wias
does exclude some temptations. Strictly speaking, Kara Travra is
modified by this restriction, since a number of our worst tempta-
tions arise out of sin previously committed. But this is not in
the writer's mind at all. He is too eager, to enter into any
psychological analysis.
Philo deduces from Lv 4 s (/jl6i>oi> oi)k dvriKpvs avaSiddcrKuv, Sri 6 irpbs
aX-qdeiav apxitpevs Kal fir] \pev5djvv/xos d/x^roxos dfiapTrj/juTiov iarlv) that the
ideal highpriest is practically sinless {de Victimis, 10) ; but this is a thought with
which he wistfully toys, and the idea of the Logos as unstained by contact with
the material universe is very different from this conception of Jesus as actually
tempted and scatheless. Nor would the transference of the idea of messiah as
sinless account for our writer's view. To him and his readers Jesus is sinless,
not in virtue of a divine prerogative, but as the result of a real human experience
which proved successful in the field of temptation.
Hence (v. 16 ) Trpocrepxoj/AcSoi ouv (jlcto, Trappr^aias. Philo (quis rer.
div. haeres, 2) makes Trapprjcria. the reward of a good conscience,
which enables a loyal servant of God to approach him frankly.
1 Of God in 4 Mac 5 s5 *<""& (ptiaiv rjfuv ffvfiiradel vo/xoderuiv 6 rod KTiarrjs,
but in the weaker sense of consideration. It is curious that 4 Mac, like
Hebrews, uses the word twice, once of God and once of men (cp. 4 Mac 13- 8
outojs 8r) tolvvv KadearyKvias tt)<s <t>i\a.8e\<pLas <7v/j,Tra6o{i<rr]s).
60 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IV. 16
But here (cp. ERE. ii. 786) irappqo-ia. is not freedom of utterance
so much as resolute confidence (cp. on 3 6 ). Our writer certainly
includes prayer in this conception of approaching God, but it is
prayer as the outcome of faith and hope. Seneca bids Lucilius
pray boldly to God, if his prayers are for soundness of soul and
body, not for any selfish and material end: "audacter deum
roga ; nihil ilium de alieno rogaturus es " {Ep. x. 4). But even
this is not the meaning of 7rappr/crta here. The Roman argues
that a man can only pray aloud and confidently if his desires are
such as he is not ashamed to have others hear, whereas the
majority of people " whisper basest of prayers to God." Our
author does not mean " palam " by irappiqcria.
Our approach {irpoaepx^p-eda : the verb in the sense of
applying to a court or authority, e.g. in OP. 1119 8 -n-poo-qXOo/xev
Trj Kpartarr] /3ov\fj, BGU. 1022) is tw Opo^w tt}s x&P lT °S> f° r grace
is now enthroned (see 2 9f> ). For the phrase see Is 16 5 hopO^dq-
o-erai par cAe'ovs Opovos. Our author (cp. Introd. p. xlvii), like
those who shared the faith of apocalyptic as well as of rabbinic
piety, regarded heaven as God's royal presence and also as the
a-K-qv-q where he was worshipped, an idea which dated from Is
6 lf - and Ps 29 (cp. Mechilta on Ex 15 17 ), though he only alludes
incidentally (12 22 ) to the worship of God by the host of angels
in the upper sanctuary. He is far from the pathetic cry of
Azariah (Dn 3 38 ) : a>»c 1<ttlv iv to) Kaip<Z touto) . . . ov8e toVos tov
KapTru)o-au ivoiinov aov kou eipelv eA.eos. He rather shares Philo's
feeling {de Exsecrat. 9) that 01 dvao-^tpp-ivoi can rely upon the
compassionate character of God {kv\ pXv iirn.iKf.ia. koI xptjo-tottjti
tov -irapa.Ka\ovp.ivov crvyyviiip.r)v 7rpo Ti^touptas del Ti^evTOs), though
he regards this mercy as conditioned by the sacrifice of Jesus.
The twofold object of the approach is (a) Xapfidveiv eXeos, which
is used for the passive of e'Aeu> (which is rare), and {b) xd° lv
€upio-K€ii/ ktA.., an echo of the LXX phrase {e.g. Gn 6 8 ) zvpia-Ktiv
xdpii/ ivavriov Kvpiov {tov deov). In the writer's text (A) of the
LXX, Prov 8 17 ran 01 Be ip.k ^ToDvrts tvpr)o-ovo~i \dpiv. 1 Eis
euKcupoy (3oi]0eiai' recalls toTs 7T€ipa£o^eVois /3or)6r}o-ai in 2 18 ; it
signifies " for assistance in the hour of need." Eu/caipo? means
literally "seasonable," as in Ps 104 27 {Sovvai tjjv rpo^qv airots
evKcupov), "fitting" or "opportune" {Ep. Aristeas, 203, 236).
The " sympathy " of Jesus is shown by practical aid to the
tempted, which is suitable to their situation, suitable above all
because it is timely {evKaipov being almost equivalent to iv xaipw
1 Aristotle argues that x^P' J or benevolence must be spontaneous and
disinterested ; also, that its value is enhanced by necessitous circumstances
(iarui Stj x°-P is > Ka &' ^l" °' £x w " X^yccu X°-P LV vnovpyelv deo/nivy fj.r\ clvt'l tivos,
/xrjd' 'tva tl aiiTifi T<j> inroupyovvTi dXV 'iv tKeivu) n' p.(yd\r) 5' hv 17 acpSSpa
Seofxifip, f) fieyaKoiv Kal x a ^ e ' n '£ , v, ?) iv icaipois toiovtoU, f) fidvos f) irpwTos fj
fidXicrra, Rhet. ii. 7. 2).
IV. 16-V. 1.] JESUS AS PRIEST 6l
XptLa-s, Sir 8 9 ). Philo (de sacrificantibus, 10) shows how God, for all
his greatness, cherishes compassion (IXeov kolI olktov Aap./3dv€i tw eV
eV8«'ais d.7ropa>TaTtov) for needy folk, especially for poor proselytes,
who, in their devotion to him, are rewarded by his help (nap-rov
eipd.fj.evoL rrjs ZttI tov 6ehv Kara(pvyrj<; ttjv a7r avrov fiorjdeiav). But
the best illustration of the phrase is in Aristides, Eis tov 2,dp<nnv
50 : are. yap St) 7ras tis iv 7ravTi Kaipto (3or)6ov KaAei, "^dpairi.
How widely even good cursives may be found supporting a wrong reading
is shown by the evidence for TrpoaepxofJ-eda : 6. 38. 88. 104. 177. 206*. 241.
255- 263. 337. 378. 383. 440. 462. 467. 487. 489- 623. 635. 639. 642. 915.
919. 920. 927. 1149. 1245. 1288. 1518. 1836. 1852. 1872. 1891. 2004. For
?Xeos (the Hellenistic neuter, cp. Cronert's Memoria Graeca Hercu/anensis,
176 1 ), the Attic £\eov {fkeos, masc.) is substituted by L and a few minuscules
(Chrys. Theodoret). B om. evpu/xev.
He now (5 1 " 10 ) for the first time begins to explain the qualifi-
cations of the true dp^iepevs.
(a) First, he must be humane as well as human :
1 Every highpriest who is selected from men and appointed to act on behalf
of men in things divine, offering gifts and sacrifices for sin, 2 can deal gently
with those who err through ignorance, since he himself is beset with weakness —
3 which obliges him to present offerings for his own sins as well as for those of
the People.
(b) Second, he must not be self-appointed.
4 Also, it is an office which no one elects to take for himself ; he is called to
it by God, just as Aaron was.
The writer now proceeds to apply these two conditions to Jesus, but he
takes them in reverse order, beginning with (b).
5 Similarly Christ was not raised to the glory of the priesthood by himself,
but by Him who declared to him,
" Thou art my son,
to-day have I become thy father."
6 Just as elsewhere (iv tripy, sc. rbirip) he says,
" Thou art a priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek."
He then goes back to (a) :
7 In the days of his flesh, with bitter cries and tears, he offered prayers
and supplications to Him who was able to save him from death ; and he was
heard, because of his godly fear. 8 Thus, Son though he was, he learned by
(dcj) &v = a.irb tovtuv &) all he suffered how to obey, 9 and by being thus perfected
he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, 10 being desig-
nated by God highpriest "■with the rank of Melchizedek."
rias yap apx^peu's (dealing only with Hebrew highpriests,
and only with what is said of them in the LXX) e£ &.v6piattav
XapPayofAevos (Nu 8 6 Xdj3e tous Acvetras e< fxecrov vlwv 'Io-paT/A.)
KaSicrraTcu — passive, in the light of 7 28 (6 vdp,os yap avOpw-rrovs
Ka6icrTrjo-LV dp^iepeis c^ovras aadeveiav) and of the Philonic usage
(e.g. de vit. Jlfosis, ii. n, ™ p.eXXovTi dp^iepei KaOio-TaaOai). The
middle may indeed be used transitively, as, e.g., in Eurip. Supplic.
522 (7rdA.fp.0v Se toutov ovk eyd) Ka^urrapcu), and is so taken here
by some (eg. Calvin, Kypke). But to. 7rpds tov deov is an
adverbial accusative as in 2 17 , not the object of Kadiararai in an
active sense. In Swpd re kcu Guaias, here as in 8 3 and 9 9 , the
62 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [V. 1, 2.
writer goes back to the LXX (A) rendering of i K 8 64 (/ecu to
Swpov kolI To? Ova-Las). The phrase recurs in Ep. At -is teas, 234 (oi
Scopois oiok Ovaiais), and is a generic term for sacrifices or offer-
ings, without any distinction. The early omission of t£ (B D b
K Lat boh pesh) was due to the idea that Bvo-ias should be
closely connected with dpxp-n.wi' (" ut offerat dona, et sacrificia pro
peccatis," vg). Instead of writing eis to -rrpoo-cpepetv, our author
departs from his favourite construction of et? with the infinitive
and writes tea irpoor^epY], in order to introduce (xeTpioiraOeic
Suydfjiefos. This, although a participial clause, contains the lead-
ing idea of the sentence. The dpxiepevs is able to deal gently
with the erring People whom he represents, since he shares
their ao-Qiveia, their common infirmity or liability to temptation.
MeTpioTraGeu' in v. 2 is a term coined by ethical philosophy.
It is used by Philo to describe the mean between extravagant
grief and stoic apathy, in the case of Abraham's sorrow for the
death of his wife (to ol p.io-ov irpo rac dxptov eX.6p.evov p.eTpL07ra9elv,
De Abrah. 44) ; so Plutarch (Consol. ad Apoll. 22) speaks of ttjs
Kara, (pvaiv iv Totoirrots p-erpioTraOeias. But here it denotes
gentleness and forbearance, the moderation of anger in a person
who is provoked and indignant — as in Plut. de Cohib. ira, 10,
di'acrr?)crat Se Kat o-wcrcu, /cat cpeLcracrOaL Kat Kapreprjo-ai, 7rpa6V?7Tds
eon Kat o~vyyvwp.7)<; kcu p-erpLOTradeias. Josephus (Ant. xii. 3. 2)
praises this quality in Vespasian and Titus (p.eTpioTra.Qrjo-d.vTw),
who acted magnanimously and generously towards the unruly
Jews; Dionysius Halicamassus accuses Marcius (Ant. 8. 529)
of lacking to €u8tdA.Aa/cTOv Kat p.€Tpi07ra9e<S, 6tt6t€ Sl opyfjs tw
ye'voiTo. And so on. The term is allied to irpaoTrjs. The sins
of others are apt to irritate us, either because they are repeated
or because they are flagrant ; they excite emotions of disgust,
impatience, and exasperation, and tempt us to be hard and harsh
(Gal 6 1 ). The thought of excess here is excessive severity rather
than excessive leniency. The objects of this p.eTpioiraGeii' are
tois dyi'oouCTH' Kal irXaewjjieVois, i.e., people who sin through yield-
ing to the weaknesses of human nature. For such offenders
alone the piacula of atonement-day (which the writer has in mind)
availed. Those who sinned ckouo-ius (io 26 ), not dKouca'ws, were
without the pale ; for such presumptuous sins, which our writer
regards specially under the category of deliberate apostasy (3 12
io 26 ), there is no pardon possible. The phrase here is practi-
cally a hendiadys, for tois e£ dyvotas TrAavco/xeVots : the People err
through their dyvota. Thus dyvoelv becomes an equivalent for
ap.apTaveiv (Sir 23 s2 etc.), just as the noun dyvor)p.a comes to
imply sin (cp. g 7 and Jth 5 20 €t p.iv ecn-tv dyvorjp.a iv ra Xaw tovtw
Kat a.p.aprdi'OVO'L cts tov Oebv avTwv, with Tebt. Pap. 124 4 (118 B.C.)
and 5 3 — a proclamation by king Euergetes and queen Cleopatra
V. 2-5.] JESUS AS PRIEST 63
declaring "an amnesty to all their subjects for all errors, crimes,"
etc., except wilful murder and sacrilege). In the Martyr. Pauli,
4, the apostle addresses his pagan audience as dvSpes 01 on-es eV
rfi dyvwcaa /cat rfj irXavrj ravrr}.
(a) Strictly speaking, only such sins could be pardoned (Lv 4 2 5 21, ",
Nu 15 22 " 31 , Dt 17 12 ) as were unintentional. Wilful sins were not covered by
the ordinary ritual of sacrifice (io 26 , cp. Nu 12 11 ).
(6) The term irepiic£ip.ai only occurs in the LXX in Ep. Jer. 23. 57 and
in 4 Mac 12 3 (to. decr/xa. irepiKel/xevov), and in both places in its literal sense
(Symm. Is 61 10 ), as in Ac 28 20 . But Seneca says of the body, " hoc quoque
natura ut quemdam vestem animo circumdedit " (Epist. 92), and the meta-
phorical sense is as old as Theocritus (23 18, 14 <pevye 5' airb xpws i>(3ptv ras
opyas ireptKei/JLevos).
The dpxiepeu's, therefore (v. 8 ), requires to offer sacrifice for
his own sins as well as for those of the People, ica0ws nepl tou
Xaou outu) Kal Trepl iauTou. This twofold sacrifice is recognized
by Philo (de vit. Mosis, ii. 1), who notes that the holder of the
Upwavvr) must eVl TeActois iepots beseech God for blessing
avT<5 re Kal tt}? dp^o/xeVoi?. The regulations for atonement-day
(Lv 16 6 ' 17 ) provided that the dp^upev<s sacrificed for himself and
his household as well as for the People (/cal 7rpoo-d£a 'Aapa>v rbv
adcTYov TW 7rept tt}s dynaprtds olvtov koli e£iAdcr€Tai trepi avrov Kai
tov olkov avrov . . . Kal irepl irdo~q<; o-waywyrjs vlu)v lo-paijX). But
our author now turns from the idea of the solidarity between
priest and People to the idea of the priest's commission from
God. Ttji' Tip/qf (in v. 4 ) means position or office, as often, e.g.
eirirpoiros Xajxfidvei ravr-qv tt)v rifxrjv {i.e. of supervising the house-
hold slaves), Arist. Pol. i. 7, Ti/xds ydp Xeyo/xev elvai rds dp^ds, id.
iii. IO, 7repl w dp^iepiwv 7ro>s T rjp^avro Kal ricriv Ifeo-ri tt}s Tt/xf}<;
ravrr]<; p.eraXap.(3dvetv, Joseph. Ant. xx. IO. I. 'AXXd (sc. Xap.-
fidvei) Ka\ou'p.evos, but takes it when (or, as) he is called. The
terseness of the phrase led to the alteration (C c L) of dXXd into
dXX' 6 (as in v. 5 ). KaflojcnTep Kal 'Aapwc. In Josephus (Ant. iii.
8. 1), Moses tells the Israelites, vvv o' avrbs 6 6e6<> 'AapCJva tt}s
Tip.rj<i Tavrr]<; d£iov 2/cpive Kai rovrov rjprjraL lepea.
irepl (before dp-apnoliv in v. 3 ) has been changed to virep fn C c D c K L etc.
(conforming to 5 1 ). There is no difference in meaning (cp. irepl, Mt 26 28 =
virep, Mk. and Lk.), for irepl (see io 6 - 8 - 18 - 2S 13 11 ) has taken over the sense
of virep.
For Kaddifirep (k* A B D* 33) in v. 4 , H c D c K L P * 6. 1288. 1739 read
the more obvious Kadawep (C ? syr hkl Chrys. Cyr. Alex. Procopius : KaOdx).
In v. 5 oox eauToi/ eSo^acrce, while the term 86£a was specially
applicable to the highpriestly office (cf. 2 Mac 14 7 oOev d(peX6-
/xevos tt]v TrpoyovLKTjv 86£av, Ae'yw St; ttjv ap^tepwcrwTyv), the phrase
is quite general, as in the parallel Jn 8 54 . The following yevi]-
OTJmi is an epexegetic infinitive, which recurs in the Lucan
writings (Lk i 54 - 72 , Ac 15 10 ) and in the earlier Psalter of Solo-
64 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [V. 5-7.
mon (2 28 - 40 etc.). After d\V we must supply some words like
auTov eSo^affey.
The argument runs thus : We have a great dpxiepeu's, Jesus
the Son of God (4 14 ), and it is as he is Son that he carries out
the vocation of apx ii P*v<;. There is something vital, for the
writer's mind, in the connexion of dpxicpcus and Ylos. Hence he
quotes (v. 5 ) his favourite text from Ps 2 1 before the more apposite
one (in v. 6 ) from Ps no 4 , implying that the position of divine
Son carried with it, in some sense, the role of dpx<-epevs. This
had been already suggested in i 2,3 where the activities of the
Son include the purification of men from their sins. Here the
second quotation only mentions lepers, it is true ; but the writer
drew no sharp distinction between Upeus and dp^iepevs. In
Kcrrd tt)s Td|ir MeXxicreSe'ic, Tafis for the writer, as 7 15 proves
(Kara r»)v ofxoLOTrjra MeA^icrcSe/c), has a general meaning; 1 Jesus
has the rank of a Melchizedek, he is a priest of the Melchizedek
sort or order, though in the strict sense of the term there was no
Ta£is or succession of Melchizedek priests.
Td£is in the papyri is often a list or register ; in OP. 1266 24 (a. D. 98)
iv T&!-et means "in the class" (of people). It had acquired a sacerdotal
nuance, e.g. Michel 735 125f " (the regulations of Antiochus I. ), Sons re hv
vcrripwi xpb" ui tol^lv Ad/377 ravT-qv, and occasionally denoted a post or office
{e.g. Tebt. P 297 s , A.D. 123).
°Os ktX. Some editors (e.g. A. B. Davidson, Liinemann,
Peake, Hollmann) take vv. 7 ' 10 as a further proof of (6). But
the writer is here casting back to (a), not hinting that the
trying experiences of Jesus on earth proved that his vocation was
not self-sought, but using these to illustrate the thoroughness
with which he had identified himself with men. He does this,
although the parallel naturally broke down at one point. Indeed
his conception of Christ was too large for the categories he had
been employing, and this accounts for the tone and language of
the passage, (a) Jesus being x w P i<; a/tapTt'as did not require to
offer any sacrifices on his own behalf; and (b) the case of
Melchizedek offered no suggestion of suffering as a vital element
in the vocation of an apxieptvs. As for the former point, while
the writer uses Trpoareveyxas in speaking of the prayers of Jesus,
this is at most a subconscious echo of 7rpocrc/>epeiv in vv. 1-3 ; there
is no equivalent in Jesus to the sacrifice offered by the OT
ap^tepeus, 7repi eavTov . . . -rrepl d/xapTiun/. The writer starts with
his parallel, for ev reus r/fiepais rrj^ crap/<os avrov corresponds to
7T€piK€tTai ao-Oeveiav (v. 2 ) ; but instead of developing the idea of
sympathy in an official (fierpioTraOeiv Swd/Aevos ktA.), he passes to
the deeper idea that Jesus qualified himself by a moral discipline
1 As in 2 Mac 9 18 ivi<TTo\i)v %x owa - v iKeTijplas rd^iv, Ep. Arist. 69,
Kpr)iridos tyovai ral-iv.
V. 7.] THE SUFFERINGS OF JESUS 65
to be dpxupevs in a pre-eminent sense. He mentions the prayers
and tears of Jesus here, as the faith of Jesus in 2 12f -, for the
express purpose of showing how truly he shared the lot of man
on earth, using Serjcreis re Kal iKCTTjpias, a phrase which the writer
may have found in his text (A) of Jb 4o 22 ( 27 ) Se?jcreis xal iKerr/pias,
but which was classical {e.g. Isokrates, de Pace, 46, 7roAAas
t/c£T?7pias »cat Seij<r€L<; iroLovfAevoi). 'IxeT^pta had become an equiva-
lent for iKecrta, which is actually the reading here in 1 (Secerns re
teal iKeio-tas). The phrase recurs in a Ptolemaic papyrus (Brunet
de Presle et E. Egger's Papyrus Grecs du Musee du Louvre, 2 7 22 ),
Xcu'peiv o-e d£iw ficra Se^crews Kal tKCTeias, though in a weakened
sense. The addition of fie-rd Kpauyrjs (here a cry of anguish)
Icrxupas Kal SaicpuW may be a touch of pathos, due to his own
imagination, 1 or suggested by the phraseology of the 22nd psalm,
which was a messianic prediction for him (cp. above, 2 12 ) as for
the early church ; the words of v. 3 in that psalm would hardly
suit (/<€Kpd£o/xai 17/x.epas 7rpo? ere /cat ovk elaaKOvarj), but phrases
like that of V. 6 (7rpo9 <rc eVe'/cpa^av Kal icrw6r]crav) and V. 25 (ev T<Z
KeKpayerai fxe 7rpos avrbv kirrjKovaiv fiov) might have been in his
mind. Tears were added before long to the Lucan account of
the passion, at 22 44 (Epiph. Ancor. 3T, dAAd " kol eKXavaev" KetTat
ev tw Kara A.ovk3.v euayyeAta) iv tois dotopOwToi'i dj/rtypdepots). It
is one of the passages which prove how deeply the writer was
impressed by the historical Jesus ; the intense faith and courage
and pitifulness of Jesus must have deeply moved his mind. He
seeks to bring out the full significance of this for the saving
work of Jesus as Son. His methods of proof may be remote and
artificial, to our taste, but the religious interest which prompted
them is fundamental. No theoretical reflection on the qualifica-
tion of priests or upon the dogma of messiah's sinlessness could
have produced such passages as this.
Later Rabbinic piety laid stress on tear?, e.g. in Sohar Exod. fol. 5. 19,
" Rabbi Jehuda said, all things of this world depend on penitence and
prayers, which men offer to God (Blessed be He !), especially if one sheds
tears along with his prayers"; and in Synopsis Sohar, p. 33, n. 2, "There
are three kinds of prayers, entreaty, crying, and tears. Entreaty is offered
in a quiet voice, crying with a raised voice, but tears are higher than all."
In d-rro ttjs euXa^etas, the sense of €v\a/3eia in 12 28 and of
ev\a(3€La6ai in n 7 shows that airo here means "on account of"
(as is common in Hellenistic Greek), and that d7r6 rrj^ ewAaySctas
must be taken, as the Greek fathers took it, " on account of his
reverent fear of God," pro sua reverentia (vg), " because he had
1 Like that of Hos 12 4 , where tears are added to the primitive story (Gn
32 26 ) of Jacob's prayer (iviirxvffev nera ayyiXov Kal i}dvva.adr]' gK\avcrai> Kal
ide-qdr^adp fwv). In 2 Mac II 6 the Maccabean army fiera ddvp/xQv Kal BaKpvuv
iKirevov rbv Ki'ipiov.
66 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [V. 7, 8.
God in reverence " (Tyndale ; " in honoure," Coverdale). The
writer is thinking of the moving tradition about Jesus in Geth-
semane, which is now preserved in the synoptic gospels, where
Jesus entreats God to be spared death : 'Aft/35. 6 -irar-qp, iravra.
Sward aoC TrapiveyKt to TroTrjpLOV cor ifxov tovto (Mk 14 36 ). This
repeated supplication corresponds to the " bitter tears and cries."
Then Jesus adds, <iAA' ov ti iyoi OiXw, dXXd ri o-v. This is his
euAd/?eia, the godly fear which leaves everything to the will of
God. Such is the discipline which issues in v-n-aKo-q. Compare
Ps. Sol 6 8 /cat Kvpios clo-r)Kov<r€ Trpo<revx7]v 7ravr6s ev cpoftw 6eov.
(a) The alternative sense of "fear" appears as early as the Old Latin
version (d = exauditus a metu). This meaning of euXafieia (Beza : " liberatus
ex metu") occurs in Joseph. Ant. xi. 6. 9, evXafielas aOrr)v (Esther) diroXvwv.
Indeed ei/\a/3eia (cp. Anz, 359) and its verb eu\a(3eccrdai are common in this
sense ; cp. e.g. 2 Mac 8 16 fir) KaraTrXayijuai tois 5e<rfilois f/.r]5£ evXafieiadai
TT\v . . . noXuTrX-qdelav : Sir 41 3 fir) eiiXa^ov Kplfia davdrov : Wis 17 8 obroi
KarayiXatTTov evXa(3eiav ivdirovv. But here the deeper, religious sense is more
relevant to the context. " In any case the answer consisted . . . in courage
given to face death. . . . The point to be emphasized is, not so much that
the prayer of Jesus was heard, as that it needed to be heard" (A. B. Bruce,
p. 186).
(d) Some {e.g. Linden in Studien und Kritiken, i860, 753 f., and Blass,
§ 21 1) take curb rrjs evXa^elas with what follows ; this was the interpretation of
the Peshitto ("and, although he was a son, he learned obedience from fear
and the sufferings which he bore"). But the separation of dirb ttjs evXafSelas
from d<p' wv and the necessity of introducing a xal before the latter phrase
point to the artificiality of this construction.
In v. 8 Kcuirep wf 0I69 (/caurcp being used with a participle as
in 7 5 -i2 17 ) means, "Son though he was," not "son though he
was." The writer knows that painful discipline is to be expected
by all who are sons of God the Father; he points out, in i2 5f -,
that every son, because he is a son, has to suffer. Here the
remarkable thing is that Jesus had to suffer, not because but
although he was vl6<s, which shows that Jesus is Son in a unique
sense ; as applied to Jesus uios means something special. As
divine vlos in the sense of i lf -, it might have been expected that
he would be exempt from such a discipline. *Os . . . epaQev
. . . uTraicor)e is the main thread of the sentence, but xaiirep wv
ulos attaches itself to ejiaQev kt\. rather than to the preceding
participles irpoo-eveyicas and ciaaxouaOeis (Chrys. Theophyl.).
With a daring stroke the author adds, ep.aSei' d<f>' &v Iira0e tV
inra.Kor\v. The paronomasia goes back to a common Greek
phrase which is as old as Aeschylus (Agatn. 177 f.), who de-
scribes Zeus as rbv irddei fxd6o<; QivTa Kupiws «X £U/ > an< ^ ^ eus now
(W. Headlam)—
"The heart in time of sleep renews
Aching remembrance of her bruise,
And chastening wisdom enters wills that most refuse" —
V. 8, 9.] THE OBEDIENCE OF JESUS 6j
which, the poet adds, is a sort of x^P ts /Siaios from the gods.
This moral doctrine, that u-a0os brings p.ddo<;, is echoed by
Pindar {Isthm. i. 40, 6 7rov?7o-ai$ Se vow kox irpofidOuav cpepei) and
other writers, notably by Philo (de vit. Mos. iii. 38, toutous ov
Aoyos dAA. Ipya Traioevei" Tradovres fl&ovTai to ifiov avf/evSes, iirei
fiadovTes oix eyvwo-av : de spec. leg. iii. 6, iv e*c rov Trafleiv fiaOrj
kt\. : de SOtnn. ii. 15, o iraBiov aK/3i/?ws lp,a#ev, on tov Oiov (Gn
50 19 ) iariv). But in the Greek authors and in Philo it is almost
invariably applied to " the thoughtless or stupid, and to open and
deliberate offenders" (Abbott, Diat. 3208a), to people who can
only be taught by suffering. Our writer ventures, therefore, to
apply to the sinless Jesus an idea which mainly referred to young
or wilful or undisciplined natures. The term uiraKOTJ only occurs
once in the LXX, at 2 S 2 2 36 (*ai VTraxor} crov lirX-qOvviv p.e, A),
where it translates niij?. The general idea corresponds to that
of io 5 " 9 below, where Jesus enters the world submissively to do
the will of God, a vocation which involved suffering and self-
sacrifice. But the closest parallel is the argument of Paul in Ph
2 6 " 8 , that Jesus, born in human form, tTairtivuicrev kavrbv yevopevos
vttyJkoos (sc. t<3 6ew) fj-txpt. Oavdrov, and the conception of the
viraKorj of Jesus (Ro 5 18, w ) in contrast to the TrapaKorj of Adam.
What our writer means to bring out here, as in 2 10f -, is the
practical initiation of Jesus into his vocation for God and men.
"Wherever there is a vocation, growth and process are inevi-
table. . . . Personal relations are of necessity relations into which
one grows ; the relation can be fully and practically constituted
only in the practical exercise of the calling in which it is involved.
So it was with Christ. He had, so to speak, to work Himself
into His place in the plan of salvation, to go down among the
brethren whom He was to lead to glory and fully to identify
Himself with them, not of course by sharing their individual
vocation, but in the practice of obedience in the far harder
vocation given to Him. That obedience had to be learned, not
because His will was not at every moment perfect . . . but
simply because it was a concrete, many-sided obedience" (W.
Robertson Smith, Expositor 1 , ii. pp. 425, 426). TeXeiwGeis in v. 9
recalls and expands the remark of 2 10 , that God " perfected "
Jesus by suffering as tov apxqybv rrjs o-wT?/pias avrwv, and the
argument of 2 17 - 18 . The writer avoids the technical Stoic terms
TrpoKOTTTCLv and TrpoKoirr). He prefers TtXctovv and TeAeiwo-ts, not
on account of their associations with the sacerdotal consecration
of the OT ritual, but in order to suggest the moral ripening
which enabled Jesus to offer a perfect self-sacrifice, and also
perhaps with a side-allusion here to the death-association of
these terms.
68 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [V. 9-11.
Philo (de Abrah. n) observes that nature, instruction, and practice are the
three things essential irpbs Te\ii6rr]Ta rov /3iov, oure yap 8i5affKa\iai> 8.vev
(fcuaews ?) dcr/cTjuews TeXeiwdrjvai dvvarbv ovre (pvais iirl iripas 4<ttIv i\6eli> tuaur)
5^x a T °v l*o.deiv.
Amos awTT]pias was a common Greek phrase. Thus Philo
speaks of the brazen serpent as amo; o-wirr/ptas ycvo/xevo? 7ravreA.ous
tois Oeao-afxivois {de Agric. 22), Aeschines {in Ctesiph. 57) has
•nys p.\v cruiTrjpLav rfj 7ro\ei tous Oeovs amovs yeywq/j.evov<;, and in
the de Mundo, 398^, the writer declares that it is fitting for God
cutiov tc ylvzaBai rots eVi rrj<s yf)<; (TUTrjpias. ZuTTjpia alw^ios is
a LXX phrase (Is 45 17 ), but not in the sense intended here
(cp. 2 3 ). The collocation of Jesus learning how to obey God
and of thus proving a saviour tois uira,Kououo-ir auTw is remarkable.
At first sight there is a clue to the sense in Philo, who declares
that " the man who is morally earnest," receiving God's kingdom,
" does not prove a source of evil to anyone (amos yiVeTai), but
proves a source of the acquisition and use of good things for all
who obey him " (7racri tois vtttjkoo^, de Abrah. 45). This refers
to Abraham, but to the incident of Gn 23 s , not to that of
Melchizedek ; Philo is spiritualizing the idea of the good man as
king, and the vtzt\k6oi are the members of his household under
his authority. The parallel is merely verbal. Here by Traffic
tois uiraKououan' aurw the writer means ol TrurrcwavTes (4 3 ), but
with a special reference to their loyalty to Christ. Disobedience
to Christ or to God (3 18 4 6 - u ) is the practical expression of
disbelief. It is a refusal to take Christ for what he is, as God's
appointed <ipx<-epev<;. The writer then adds (v. 10 ) irpoo-ayopeuGels
utto Tou 0€ou dpxiepeus Kara. tx)v rd^iv MeXxio-e8€K, in order to
explain how, thus commissioned, he brought the o-coTT/pta auovios.
The paragraph is thus rounded off, like that of vv. 6 - 6 , with a
reference to the Melchizedek priesthood, which the writer regards
as of profound importance, and to which he now proposes to
advance. Though irpoa-ayopevw is not used in this sense ("hail,"
"designate") in the LXX, the usage is common in Hellenistic
writings like 2 Maccabees (i 36 4 7 io 9 ) and Josephus (e.g. c.
Apion. i. 311). But the Melchizedek type of priesthood is not
discussed till 6 20 7 lf# . The interlude between 5 10 and 6 20 is
devoted to a stirring exhortation ; for this interpretation of the
Son as priest is a piece of yj/wo-is which can only be imparted
to those who have mastered the elementary truths of the Chris-
tian religion, and the writer feels and fears that his readers are
still so immature that they may be unable or unwilling to grasp
the higher and fuller teaching about Christ. The admonition
has three movements of thought, 5 11 " 14 , 6 1-8 , and 6 9 " 19 .
11 On this point I(7]filv, plural of authorship, as 2 5 ) have a great deal to say,
which it is hard to make intelligible to yon. For {kcl\ ydp = etenim) you have
V. 11, 12.] BACKWARDNESS 69
grown dull of hearing. 12 Though by this time you should be teaching other
people, you still need someone to teach you once more the rudimentary prin-
ciples of the divine revelation. You are in need of milk, not of solid food.
13 ( For anyone who is fed on milk is unskilled in moral truth ; he is 1 a mere
babe. u Whereas solid food is for the mature, for those who have their
faculties trained by exercise to distinguish good and evil. ) 6 1 Let us pass on
then to what is mature, leaving eletnentary Christian doctrine behind, instead
of laying the foundation over again with repentance from dead works, with
faith in God, 2 with instruction about ablutions and the laying on of hands,
about the resurrection of the dead and eternal punishment. 8 With God's
permission zve will take this step.
riepl ou {i.e. on dp^iepev<; /card -rr)v to.$iv M.) iroXus ktX. (v. 11 ).
The entire paragraph (vv. 11 " 14 ) is full of ideas and terms current
in the ethical and especially the Stoic philosophy of the day.
Thus, to begin with, ttoXvs (sc. Zo-ti) 6 Xdyos is a common literary
phrase for " there is much to say " ; e.g. Dion. Hal. ad Amm.
i. 3, 7roXvs yap 6 7r€pi avTwv Xo'yos, and Lysias in Pancleonem, n,
ocra i*kv ovv avrodi ippyOrj, 7roXi>s av elrj fioc Xdyos Se^ycar^ai.
IIoAu's and 8vo-€pp.rjvevTo<; are separated, as elsewhere adjectives
are (e.g. 2 17 ). For the general sense of 8ucrepp,rji'euTos Xeyew, see
Philo, de migrat. Abrah. 1 8, fjs ra pcv dXXa pLaKporipwv i) Kara
tw irapovra Kdipbv SetTcu Xdywv kol vTrepOereov, and Dion. Halic.
de Comp. viii. 7repi wv /cat 7roXvs 6 Xdyos Kal fiaOeia r) #ewpia.
^va-ep/xrjvevTos occurs in an obscure and interpolated passage of
Philo's de Somniis (i. 32, dXeKTcu tlvl kcu Svcrepp.rjV€VTU) 6ia), and
Artemidorus (Oneirocr. iii. 67, 01 oveipoi . . . ttolkiXol kol -rroXXols
8vaepfx.7]vevTOL) uses it of dreams. 'E-rrei ktX. (explaining Suo-ep/177-
vevroi.) for the fault lies with you, not with the subject. N<o8pds
only occurs once in the LXX, and not in this sense (Pr 2 2 29
dvSpao-6 vtaQpois, tr. Sjfr'n); even in Sir 4 29 n 12 it means no more
than slack or backward (as below in 6 12 ). It is a common
Greek ethical term for sluggishness, used with the accusative or
the (locative) dative. With 0*017 !t denotes dulness. The literal
sense occurs in Heliodorus (v. 10: tyw fiev ovv rjad6/j.r]v . . .
Ta^a p.iv irov Kal 8l r)XiKLav vw^poTcpos cov ttjv aKorjv' vdcros yap
aXXwv re kol wtw to yr/pas), and the metaphorical sense of d*oai
is illustrated by Philo's remark in quis rer. div. haer. 3 : iv di/^ois
dvSpiacrtv, ot? wTa plv ccrriv, aKoal 8' ovk eveicriv.
Why (Kal yap, v. 12 ), the writer continues, instead of being
teachers you still need a teacher. For xP €ta w i tn the article and
infinitive (too SiSdcriceu' 2 ktX.), cp. the similar use of xpeW in OP.
1488 25 . In what follows, Tifd, the masculine singular, gives a
better sense than TtW, the neuter plural. " Ye again have need
of (one) to teach you what are the elements " (sah boh) ; but it
1 D* inserts aK/xr/v (Mt 15 16 ) between yap and icrriv : "he is still a mere
babe." Blass adopts this, for reasons of rhythm.
2 1912 and Origen read (with 462) diSdo-Ke<r0ai, and omit v/ids.
JO THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [V. 12.
is the elementary truths themselves, not what they are, that need
to be taught. Tot oroixeia here means the ABC or elementary
principles (see Burton's Galatians, pp. 5101".), such as he men-
tions in 6 1 - 2 . He defines them further as -rfjs apX"n s T ^ y ^°ywv
0€ou, where to. Xoyia 6eov means not the OT but the divine
revelation in general, so that i-a o\ t. apx^ s corresponds to the
Latin phrase " prima elementa." The words 6<J>ei\okres et^ai
Si&doxaXoi simply charge the readers with backwardness. " The
expression, ' to be teachers,' affirms no more than that the
readers ought to be ripe in Christian knowledge. Once a man
is ripe or mature, the qualification for teaching is present "
(Wrede, p. 32). The use of the phrase in Greek proves that it
is a general expression for stirring people up to acquaint them-
selves with what should be familiar. See Epict. Enchir. 51,
ttoZov ovv In SiSacrKaXov 7rpocrSo/ca5 ; . . . ovk (.tl et /xeipd/aov, dXXd
dvrjp fj8r) Te'Aeio?. It was quite a favourite ethical maxim in
antiquity. Thus Cyrus tells the Persian chiefs that he would be
ashamed to give them advice on the eve of battle : 618a yap v/aSs
Tcun-a €7r((rra/i,ei/ovs kcu /Ae/xcXenjKOTas ko.1 dcrKOvVras 8id Te'Xovs
oldirep cyw, wcttc kolv dXXovs cikotios dv SiSdcrxotTC (Cyrop. iii. 3.
35). Similarly we have the remark of Aristophanes in Plato,
Sympos. iSgd, eyd> ovv 7reipdo"op.ai ifjuv el<rr]yr)(Ta.cr8a.i rrjv SvvafiLV
avrov, v/x€L<i Se twv aWwv SiSdo-KaXoi ecrea-de, and the reply given
by Apollonius of Tyana to a person who asked why he never put
questions to anybody : on /u.eipd/aov d>v i£,rJTr]cra, vvv Se ov XPV
fyrelv dXXd. Si8do-K£iv d evpr)Ka (Philostratus, Vita Apoll. i. 17).
Seneca tells Lucilius the same truth : " quousque disces ? iam et
praecipe (Ep. 33 9 ). Thus the phrase here offers no support
whatever to any theories about the readers of Hpos 'Efipaiovs
being a group of teachers, or a small, specially cultured com-
munity. The author, himself a ouW/caAo?, as he is in possession
of this mature yvwo-is, is trying to shame his friends out of their
imperfect grasp of their religion. That is all. reyoVaTe xp^ av
Ixodes is a rhetorical variant for xP^ av «X €T€ > due to the writer's
fondness for yeyova. If there is any special meaning in the
larger phrase, it is that detected by Chrysostom, who argues that
the writer chose it deliberately : tovtio-tlv, v^els rjOeXrjo-are, v/tcts
eavTOvs et? tovto KaTeaTrjo-are, cts ravrrjv ti)v xpeiav. They are
responsible for this second childhood of theirs. The comparison 1
of milk and solid food is one of the most common in Greek
1 Origen (Philocalia, xviii. 23) uses this passage neatly to answer Celsus,
who had declared that Christians were afraid to appeal to an educated and
intelligent audience. He quotes 5 12f - as well as I Co 3 2 '-, arguing that in
the light of them it must be admitted yfxds, 6<ttj duvafus, irivra TrpdrTOfiev
virtp rod (ppovi/xwv dudpQv ytviadai rbv avWoyov 7)nwV k<x1 to. iv rffxiv yudXtoTa
koKo. koX 6e1a r6re ToK/xCii-iev 4u roh irpds to Koivbv oiaXdyois (pipeiv eh ixiaov s
6t einropov/j.ev avverCjv cucpoaTuiv.
V. 12-14.] IMMATURITY 7 1
ethical philosophy, as in Epictetus, e.g. ii. 16. 39, ov flc'Xeis »J8ij
o)S to. 7rai8ta d7roya\a«Tto-^vat kcli aimo-dat rpo(f>f)<; crrepewrcpas,
and iii. 24. 9, ovk aTroya\a.KTiaofjLtv fj8r] iroO' eavrovs, and parti-
cularly in Philo. A characteristic passage from the latter writer
is the sentence in de agric. 2 : €7rei Se vrj-rriois fikv la-n ydXa rpo^,
reXciois Se ra e»c irvpu>v TreupvaTa, Kai i/'v^tjs yaXaKTwScis pikv av
euv Tpocfaal Kara rr]v Trai8t,Kr)v ^Xi/a'av ra rrj<; iyKvxXiov p.ovaiKrj<;
7rp07raio"eup.aTa, re'Xeiai Se Kai dvSpdcrii' €yu.7rpe7T€ts ai 81a <ppovr)(rew<;
kcu (TO)(f>po(rvvr)<; Kai a7ra(rr;s dpe-ri)? v(pr)yrjcr€i<;. Our writer adopts
the metaphor, as Paul had done (1 Co 3 1- 2 ), and adds a general
aside (vv. 13>14 ) in order to enforce his remonstrance. He does
not use the term yvwo-is, and the plight of his friends is not due
to the same causes as operated in the Corinthian church, but
he evidently regards his interpretation of the priesthood of Christ
as mature instruction, oreped Tpo<J>rj. 'O p.€T€'xwe ydXaitTos is one
whose only food (p.(Tex eLV as m I Co 10 17 etc.) is milk ; direipos
is "inexperienced," and therefore "unskilled," in Xoyou Sikcho-
0-^5 — a n ethical phrase for what moderns would call " moral
truth," almost as in Xen. Cyrop. i. 6. 31, avrjp SiSdo-KaXos tu>v
7ratSwv, os eSi'Sao-Kev apa rovs 7rato"as tt)v §iKatoo~vviqv ktX., or in M.
Aurelius xi. 10, xii. 1. Thus, while Sikcuoctucti here is not a
religious term, the phrase means more than (a) " incapable of
talking correctly " (Delitzsch, B. Weiss, von Soden), which is, no
doubt, the mark of a vtqttlo<s, but irrelevant in this connexion ;
or (b) " incapable of understanding normal speech," such as
grown-up people use (Riggenbach). TeXeiwi' Be kt\. (v. 14 ). The
clearest statement of what contemporary ethical teachers meant by
Te'Xaos as mature, is (cp. p. 70) in Epict. Enchirid. 51, "how long
(eis 7rotov en xpovov) will you defer thinking of yourself as worthy
of the very best . . . ? You have received the precepts you
ought to accept, and have accepted them. Why then do you
still wait for a teacher (SiSdo-KaXov 7rpocrSo/<as), that you may put
off amending yourself till he comes ? You are a lad no longer,
you are a full-grown man now (ovk Itl el p,€ipaKiov, dXXd av^p
T7S77 Te'Xetos). . . . Make up your mind, ere it is too late, to live
d)s riXeiov Kai irpoKoirTovra." Then he adds, in words that recall
He i2 lf - : " and when you meet anything stiff or sweet, glorious
or inglorious, remember that vvv 6 dyuiv Kai 7/817 7rdpeo"ri ra
'OXvfXTna." As Pythagoras divided his pupils into v^ttloi and
Te'Xeioi, so our author distinguishes between the immature and
the mature (cp. 1 Co 2 6 ev tois reXeiois, 3 1 vy-Triois). In Bid ji]i>
iiiv (vg. " pro consuetudine ") he uses e£is much as does the writer
of the prologue to Sirach (iKavrjv Z$iv 7rcp17ro1.77crdp.6vo';), for facility
or practice. 1 It is not an equivalent for mental faculties here,
1 " Firma quaedam facilitas quae apud Graecos ££is nominatur" (Quint.
Inst it. Orat. 10. 1).
72 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [V. 14-VI. 1.
but for the exercise of our powers. These powers or faculties
are called to. aio-0r)Trjpia. AiV^Tr/piov was a Stoic term for an
organ of the senses, and, like its English equivalent " sense,"
easily acquired an ethical significance, as in Jer 4 19 to. ala-B^r^pia
tt/s KapSta? fiov. The phrase Y e Y u f lv ' acr f JL€ ' , ' a oiffOtjTrjpia may be
illustrated from Galen (de dign. puis. iii. 2, os piv yap av evaicrOrjTo-
toltov (jivaLV T€ KOU to aladrjTrjpLOV exj] ycyvfjLva(TiA€vov iKavm . . .
owros av apiaTOS clr) yvwp.oov twv cvtos t>7roKeipeva)i>, and de complexu,
ii. : XeXoyiafxevov p.ev eoriv dvSpos tovs Xoyicr/xovs oi>s eiprjKa kcli
yeyvfAvao-jAtva ttjv alaOrjcrtv ev TroWfj rrj Kara p,e'pos i/JLireipia ktA.),
yeyv/xvaaixtva being a perfect participle used predicatively, like
TrefpvTivjxevrjv in Lk 13 6 , and yeyvp.vao-p.eVoi/ above. Compare
what Marcus Aurelius (iii. 1) says about old age; it may come
upon us, bringing not physical failure, but a premature decay of
the mental and moral faculties, e.g., of self-control, of the sense
of duty, Kai oVa roiavra Xoyiap-ov o-i>yyeyvp.vacrp:evou iravv xpr^ei.
Elsewhere (ii. 13) he declares that ignorance of moral distinctions
(ayvoia dyaflwv /cal kolkwv) is a blindness as serious as any inability
to distinguish black and white. The power of moral discrimina-
tion (irpos SidKpio-iv koXou tc Kal kcikou) is the mark of maturity,
in contrast to childhood (cp. e.g. Dt i 39 7r5v 7raioYov ve'ov oo-ns
ovk oTSev ayp-epov ayadbv 17 kokov). Compare the definition of
to tjOlkov in Sextus Empiricus {Hyp. Pyrrh. iii. 168): oirep Sokci
7repi tt)v 8tctKpio"iv twv re kclXwv kcu kolkwv ical dSiacpopcov Kara-
yLyreadai
In spite of Resch's arguments (Texte u. Untermchungen, xxx. 3. U2f. ),
there is no reason to hear any echo of the well-known saying attributed to
Jesus : yiveade Sk 86ki/xoi Tpairegirai, to. (ih airoSoKi/xdfovTes, to 5e icaXdv
Kar^xovres.
A l0 — well then (as in i2 12 - 28 ) — eirl t6v Te\eioTT]Ta <J>epojp.e0a
(6 1 ). It is a moral duty to grow up, and the duty involves an
effort. The TeXeioTr/s in question is the mature mental grasp of
the truth about Christ as dpxiepeu's, a truth which the writer is
disappointed that his friends still find it difficult to understand.
However, Sia tov xpovov they ought to understand it. He has every
reason to expect an effort from them, and therefore he follows
up his remonstrance with a word of encouragement. Instead of
the sharp, severe tone of vv. uf -, he now speaks more hopefully.
The connexion is not easy. We expect "however" instead of
"well then." But the connexion is not made more easy by
regarding 6 lf - as a resolve of the writer : " since you are so im-
mature, I am going on myself to develop the higher teaching."
It would be senseless for a teacher to take this line, and it is not
facilitated by reading <pep6>e0a. The plural is not the literary
plural as in 5 11 . The writer wishes to carry his readers along
with him. " If you want anyone to instruct you over again in
VI. 1.] A CALL TO THOUGHT 73
rudimentary Christianity, 1 am not the man ; I propose to carry
you forward into a higher course of lessons. Come, let us
advance, you and I together." The underlying thought, which
explains the transition, is revealed in the next paragraph (vv. 4f -),
where the writer practically tells his readers that they must either
advance or lose their present position of faith, 1 in which latter
case there is no second chance for them. In spite of his un-
qualified censure in 5 12 , he shows, in 6 9f -, that they are really
capable of doing what he summons them to try in 6 lf -, i.e. to
think out the full significance of Jesus in relation to faith and
forgiveness. Only thus, he argues, can quicken the faint pulse of
your religious life. " Religion is something different from mere
strenuous thinking on the great religious questions. Yet it still
remains true that faith and knowledge are inseparable, and that
both grow stronger as they react on one another. More often
than we know, the failure of religion, as a moral power, is due to
no other cause than intellectual sloth" (E. F. Scott, p. 44).
After the parenthesis of 5 13 - u , the writer resumes the thought
with which he started in 5 Ua "you must make an effort to enter
into this larger appreciation of what Christ means." "A<f>erres . . .
4>epwfA€0a is a phrase illustrated by Eurip. Androm. 392-393,
rryv apyy)v d(£eis | 7rpos ttjv reXevryjv varepav ovaav </>epj? : by
adores the writer means "leaving behind," and by cp€pwp.e9a
"let us advance." 'A<f>tr)[xi might even mean "to omit" ("not
mentioning ") ; it is so used with Ao'yov ( = to pass over without
mentioning), e.g. in Plutarch's an sent respublica gerenda sit, 18,
aXX' d^e'i'Tts, ei fiovXei, t6v airoo-irwvTa. ttJs 7roA.iTeias Aoyov e/ceivo
cr/coTTw/xev rfi-q ktX., and even independently (cp. Epict. iv. 1. 15, tov
p.tv Katcrapa 7rposTO ivapbv acpwp.ev, and Theophrastus, prooem. d<£eis
to irpooipLia^to-Oai koll 7roXXa irepl tov 7rpdy/xaTOS Aeyeiv). In what
follows, TOf ttjs dpx'ns tou XpioTou \6yov is a variant for to. o-Toi^eia
ttJs dp^^s Twv Xoyiwv tov 6eov (5 12 ). Tov Xpto-rov is an objective
genitive ; the writer is not thinking of injunctions issued by
Christ (so Harnack, Constitution and Law of the Church, p. 344).
Blass follows L in reading Xon?6v after Xoyov — needlessly.
The use of the Oep-eXiof metaphor after -rijs dpxrjs was natural ;
it occurs in Epictetus (ii. 15. 8, ov OeXeis tt)v ap^v o-rijo-ai kcu tov
6ep.£Xiov) and in Philo (de spec. leg. ii. 13, a.pyr\v Twrqv /3aAXo-
/xevos S>o-n-£p 0ep,eXi6v nva). Indeed the OefjieXiov metaphor is
particularly common in Philo, as, e.g., in the de vita contempt.
476 {iyK.pa.Tf.iav Se wa-rrep Tiva 6ep.eXt.0v TrpoKaTa/3aXX6p.evoi if/v^rjs).
This basis (0ep.eX.iov) of Christian instruction is now described ;
the contents are arranged in three pairs, but, as the middle pair
are not distinctively Christian ideas (v. 2 ), the writer puts in
1 Compare the motto which Cromwell is said to have written on his
pocket-bible, " qui cessat esse melior cessat esse bonus."
74 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 2.
SiSaxV or StSaxTjs. The Oe/xeXiov of instruction consists of
/xeTavotas . . . ko.1 Trt'crretos (genitives of quality), while SiSa^v,
which is in apposition to it ("I mean, instruction about"),
controls the other four genitives. Me-rdvcaa and moris, Paimo-fioi
and eirideVis x €t P^*') 4wJoTao*s and Kpijia al&viov, are the funda-
mental truths. McTavota x olito is like p-eTavoetv airo (Ac 8 22 ), and
warns ewi. deov like wioTeveiv ewi {e.g. Wis 1 2 2 iva dwaAAayeVres rf)s
Kaictas wicrreuo-w/aev ewi ere', xvpie). These two requirements were
foremost in the programme of the Christian mission. The other
side of repentance is described in 9 14 iroo-w //.SAAov to alfxa toZ
XpiCTTOi) . . . Kadapul rrjv crvve[8r}cri.v rjfxiov oltto vexpa>v epywv eis to
Xarpeveiv 6eu> £wvti, where the last word indicates that veKpa. epya
mean the conduct of those who are outside the real life and
service of God. Practically, therefore, veKpd epya are sins, as the
Greek fathers assumed; the man who wrote 11 25 (deov . . .
dp,apri'as) would hardly have hesitated to call them such. He
has coined this phrase to suggest that such epya have no principle
of life in them, 2 or that they lead to death. The origin of the
phrase has not been explained, though Chrysostom and Oecu-
menius were right in suggesting that the metaphor of 9 14 was
derived from the contamination incurred by touching a corpse
(see Nu iQ lf * 31 19 ). Its exact meaning is less clear. The one
thing that is clear about it is that these epya veKpa were not
habitual sins of Christians ; they were moral offences from which
a man had to break away, in order to become a Christian at all.
They denote not the lifeless, formal ceremonies of Judaism, but
occupations, interests, and pleasures, which lay within the sphere
of moral death, where, as a contemporary Christian writer put it
(Eph 2 1 ), pagans lay veKpol tois wapawTW/Aacriv kcll Tals dp.apnais.
The phrase might cover Jewish Christians, if there were any
such in the community to which this homily is addressed, but it is
a general phrase. Whatever is evil is ve^po'v, for our author, and
epya veKpa render any Christian warns or Aarpeveiv impossible
(cp. Expositor, Jan. 19 18, pp. 1-18), because they belong to the
profane, contaminating sphere of the world.
In v. 2 8i8axrjf is read, instead of Si&axrjs, by B syr harld and
the Old Latin, a very small group — yet the reading is probably
1 According to Philo (de Abrah. 2, 3), next to hope, which is the &pxv
fierovGlas ayadQ>v, comes 17 iirl a.p.apTavop.e'vois fierdvoia Kal {leXrlwfflS. Only,
he adds (ibid. 4), repentance is second to TeXeibT-rjs, wcrwep Kal avbaov crufiaTos
i] irpbs vyielav e£ dadevelas /uera/3o\rj . . . 1) 5' a7r<5 tlvos xp& vov /3e\r/w<rts !8ioi>
dyadbv ev<pvovs if'vxys e'er* fxrj tois iraibiKois iwi/jievovarjs dXX' afipoTCpois Kal
avdpbs Hvtios ■ppovr\p.ao~-v iiri^y}Tova-qs evbtov Ka.T6.aTa.0~1v [i/'i>x?)s] Kal T77 (pavTaalq.
tQ)V K0.\u1V ilT-Tp€XOVaT)S.
2 Cp. the use of vtKpbs in Epict. iii. 23. 28, ko.1 p-r-v av p.7] Taura ('p.-rroirj 6
tou <pCKoab(pov \byos, veKpbs 4ctti Kal avrbs Kal \iywv. This passage indicates
how vtKpbs could pass from the vivid application to persons (Mt 8", Lk 15 s2 ,
cp. Col 2 1S ), into a secondary application to their sphere and conduct.
VI. 2.] ELEMENTARY CHRISTIANITY J$
original ; the surrounding genitives led to its alteration into
SiSa^s. However, it makes no difference to the sense, which
reading is chosen. Even SiSa^s depends on OtfxlXiov as a
qualifying genitive. But the change of hihayrjv into SiSa^s is
much more likely than the reverse process. Aioc^/v follows
fi<nrTiarfxwi> like /<ocr/xos in I P 3' (ivSvaew; Ifiartwy koct/xos).
Ba-n-Tia-fAoi by itself does not mean specifically Christian baptism
either in this epistle (9 10 ) or elsewhere (Mk 7 4 ), but ablutions or
immersions such as the mystery religions and the Jewish cultus
required for initiates, proselytes, and worshippers in general.
The singular might mean Christian baptism (as in Col 2 12 ), but
why does the writer employ the plural here? Not because
in some primitive Christian circles the catechumen was thrice
sprinkled or immersed in the name of the Trinity (Didache 7 1 ' 3 ),
but because ancient religions, such as those familiar to the
readers, had all manner of purification rites connected with
water (see on io 22 ). The distinctively Christian uses of water
had to be grasped by new adherents. That is, at baptism, e.g.,
the catechumen would be specially instructed about the differ-
ence between this Christian rite, with its symbolic purification
from sins of which one repented, and (a) the similar rites in
connexion with Jewish proselytes on their reception into the
synagogue or with adherents who were initiated into various
cults, and (b) the ablutions which were required from Christians
in subsequent worship. The latter practice may be alluded to
in IO 22 (AeAovcr/xcvot to o-ai/Aa vSan Ka.6a.pw). Justin (Apol. i. 62)
regards these lustrations of the cults as devilish caricatures of
real baptism : /cat to Xovrpbv 8tj tovto aKovcravTes 01 Scu'/Aoves . . .
ivTQpyrjcrav ko.1 pavri£eiv eavTOvs tovs €is ra Upa avTwv e7ri/3aivovTas
Kai irpocrtevcu olvtols yueAAovTas, Aoi/3ds Kai /cvtcras a.7TOTe\oviTa<;
TtXeov Sk /cat XovecrGat iiriovras irp\v iXdetv iirl ra lepd, ZvOa
iSpwrai, ivepyovai. The emSe'cns x 6l P<^ 1 ' which often followed
baptism in primitive days (e.g. Ac 8 ivf - 19 6 ), though it is ignored
by the Didache and Justin, was supposed to confer the holy
Spirit (see v. 4 ). Tertullian witnesses to the custom (de baptismo,
18, de carnis resurrectione, 8), and Cyprian corroborates it (Ep.
lxxiv. 5, " manus baptizato imponitur ad accipiendum spiritum
sanctum "). The rite was employed in blessing, in exorcising,
and at " ordination," afterwards at the reception of penitents
and heretics ; here it is mentioned in connexion with baptism
particularly (ERE. vi. 494^).
The subject is discussed in monographs like A. J. Mason's The Relation
of Confirmation to Baptism (1891), and J. Behm's Die Handauflegung im
Urchristenthum ( 1 9 1 1 ).
The final pair of doctrines is dyaa-rdo-ews f€Kpwk tea! Kpip.aTos
( 2 u. 15 9 27) aiwiov (as in Ac 24 15 - 25 ). Te is added after djw-
76 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 2-4.
rao-ceos mechanically (to conform with the preceding re) by K A C
K L Lat arm S yr hklpesh , just as it is added after fiaTrTio-fAwv by
harkl. In the rather elliptical style and loose construction of the
whole sentence, " notwithstanding its graceful rhythmical struc-
ture," it is possible to see, with Bruce (p. 203), " an oratorical
device to express a feeling of impatience" with people who need
to have such principia mentioned. At any rate the writer hastens
forward. V. 3 is not a parenthesis (" I will do this," i.e. go over
such elementary truths with you, "if God permits," when I
reach you, 13 23 ) ; the touto refers to the advance proposed in v. 1 ,
and after TroiTJo-ofiei/ the author adds reverently, " if God permits,"
ednrep eiriTpe'irT) 6 0e6s, almost as a contemporary rhetorician
might say in a pious aside : edv Se <r*a'C,rj to Scu/aoViov ^.as (Dion.
Halicarn. De Admir. Vi dicendi in Dem. 58), or Qiuv ^u.Ss
(jivXaTTovTwv auivels tc koX dvocrous (De Composit. Verborum, 1).
The papyri show that similar phrases were current in the
correspondence of the day (cp. Deissmann's Bible Studies, p. 80),
and Josephus (Ant. xx. n. 2) uses kov to 6elov iirLTpeirfj.
Trorqo-ofAev (n B K L N I. 2. 5. 6. 33. 69. 88. 216. 218. 221. 226. 242.
255- 337- 429- 489- 919- 920. 1149- i5 lS - 1739- 1758. 1827. 1867. 2127. 2143.
Lat sah boh Chrys. ) has been changed into iroirjaufiev by A C D P arm, etc.,
though the latter may have been originally, like <pep&/jLe6a in v. 1 , an ortho-
graphical variant, and w being frequently confused.
4 For in the case of people who have been once enlightened, who tasted the
heavenly Gift, who participated in the holy Spirit, B who tasted the goodness of
God's word and the powers of Ike world to co7?ie, 6 and then fell away — it is
impossible to ?nake them repent afresh, since they crucify the Son of God in
their own persons and hold him tip to obloquy. 7 For " land" which absorbs
the rain that often falls on it, and bears '■plants" that are useful to those for
whom it is tilled, receives a blessing from God ; 8 whereas, if it (sc. i] yij) "pro-
duces thorns and thistles," it is reprobate and on the verge of being cursed — its
fate is to be burned.
Vv. 4 " 6 put the reason for touto iroiY)o-ou.ef (v. 3 ), and vv. 7, 8 give
the reason for doum-roy . . . di/aKamj^eif els neravoiav (vv. 4 ' 6 ).
'AouVarov ydp ktX. (v. 4 ) ; there are four impossible things in the
epistle: this and the three noted in vv. 18 io 4 and n 6 . Tous . . .
cuweos ( 4 - 5a ) is a long description of people who have been
initiated into Christianity; then comes the tragic icai Trapaireo--
ovTas. What makes the latter so fatal is explained in (v. 6 )
dyao-TaupoucTas . . . TTapaSeiyfJiaTi^ocTas. Logically irdXii' dm-
Kcn^eif cis u.eTdi'oiai' ought to come immediately after a.h6varov
ydp, but the writer delayed the phrase in order to break up the
sequence of participles. The passage is charged with an austerity
which shows how seriously the writer took life. Seneca quotes
(Ep. xxiii. 9-1 1) to Lucilius the saying of Epicurus, that "it is
irksome always to be starting life over again," and that "they live
badly who are always beginning to live.'' The reason is: "quia
VI. 4.] A WARNING 77
semper illis imperfecta vita est." But our writer takes a much
more sombre view of the position of his friends. He urges
them to develop their ideas of Christianity. "You need some
one to teach you the rudimentary lessons of the faith all over
again," he had said. "Yes," he now adds, "and in some cases
that is impossible. Relaying a foundation of repentance, etc. !
That cannot be done for deliberate apostates." The implication
is that his readers are in danger of this sin, as indeed he has
hinted already (in 3 7 -4 14 ), and that one of the things that is
weakening them is their religious inability to realize the supreme
significance of Jesus. To remain as they are is fatal ; it means
the possibility of a relapse altogether. " Come on," the writer
bids them, " for if you do not you will fall back, and to fall back
is to be ruined." The connexion between this passage and the
foregoing, therefore, is that to rest content with their present
elementary hold upon Christian truth is to have an inadequate
grasp of it ; the force of temptation is so strong that this rudi-
mentary acquaintance with it will not prevent them from falling
away altogether, and the one thing to ensure their religious
position is to see the full meaning of what Jesus is and does.
This meaning he is anxious to impart, not as an extra but as an
essential. The situation is so serious, he implies, that only
those who fully realize what Jesus means for forgiveness and
fellowship will be able to hold out. And once you relapse, he
argues, once you let go your faith, it is fatal ; people who de-
liberately abandon their Christian confession of faith are beyond
recovery. Such a view of apostasy as a heinous offence, which
destroyed all hope of recovery, is characteristic of ITpos 'E/?paious.
It was not confined to this writer. That certain persons could
not repent of their sins was, e.g., an idea admitted in rabbinic
Judaism. "Over and over again we have the saying : 'For him
who sins and causes others to sin no repentance is allowed or
possible' (Aboth v. 26; Sanhedrin, lo-jb). 'He who is wholly
given up to sin is unable to repent, and there is no forgiveness
to him for ever' (Midrash Tehillim on Ps 1 ad jin.)." 1 There
is a partial parallel to this passage in the idea thrown out by
Philo in de agricultura, 28, as he comments upon Gn 9 20 :
"Noah began to till the earth." Evidently, says Philo, this
means that he was merely working at the apx at OI " the subject.
'Apxq 8 , 6 Tail' iraXatwv Aoyos, rjjxicrv rov 7ravTos, cos av rj/jLicret. 7rpos
to Te'Aos a<p€(TT7]Kv'ia, ov (jlt) irpo(ryei'Ofj.€vov /cat to ap£acrOai
TroWaKLS fxeydXa ttoWovs lySAai^ei'. His point is that it
is dangerous to stop short in any moral endeavour. But our
author is more rigorous in his outlook. His warning is modified,
however, (a) It is put in the form of a general statement.
1 C. G. Montefiore, in Jewish Quarterly Review (1904), p. 225.
yS THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 4.
(b) It contains a note of encouragement in v. 7 ; and (c) it is at
once followed up by an eager hope that the readers will dis-
appoint their friend and teacher's fear (v. 9 ). In the later church
this feature of IIpos c E/?paious entered into the ecclesiastical
question of penance (cp. ERE. ix. 716, and Journal of Theo-
logical Studies, iv. 321 f.), and seriously affected the vogue of the
epistle (cp. Introd. p. xx).
The fourfold description of believers ( 4 - *•) begins with fiira£
(j>(im<r0eVTas, where <pa>Tio-#evTas corresponds to Xaftelv ttjv liriy-
vwo-tv 1-775 a\.7]6eLas (io 26 ), in the general sense of LXX (e.g.
Ps Il8 130 r) Srj\(ji(Xis t&v Xoyoiv aov tftwriei, kcu crvveril vqiriovs),
i.e. "enlightened" in the sense of having their eyes opened
(Eph i 18 ) to the Christian God. Subsequently, earlier even than
Justin Martyr, the verb, with its noun <pa)Tio-p.os, came to be used
of baptism specifically (cp. ERE. viii. 54, 55). *A7ra| is pre-
fixed, in contrast to -rrdX.ii' (v. 6 ) ; once for all men enter Christi-
anity, it is an experience which, like their own death (a 27 ) and
the death of Jesus (g 2S ), can never be repeated. In ica\6f yeucra-
fieVous 0eou pfjjxa (" experienced how good the gospel is ") the con-
struction resembles that of Herod, vii. 46, where the active voice
is used with the accusative (6 Se deos yXvxvv yewras tov alwva,
<p#ovepos iv avT<3 evpio-Kerai e'wv), and the adj. is put first : " the
deity, who let us taste the sweetness of life (or, that life is
sweet), is found to be spiteful in so doing." The similar use of
the middle here as in Pr 29 s6 and Jn 2 9 probably points to the
same meaning (cp., however, Diat. 2016-2018), i.e., practically
as if it were on ktX. (cp. Ps 34 s yevaaaOe ko.1 i'Sctc on XP 7 ? " 7 " 05
6 Kvpios, 1 P 2 3 ), in contrast to the more common construction
with the genitive (v. 4 2 9 ). The writer uses genitive and accusa-
tive indifferently, for the sake of literary variety ; and kclXov here
is the same as kclXov in 5 14 . reuo-apeVous ktX. recalls the parti-
ality of Philo for this metaphor (e.g. de Abrah. 19; de Somniis,
i. 26), but indeed it is common (cp. e.g. Jos. Ant. iv. 6. 9, a7ra£
to veov yevo-apevov £eviK<Ji)v €#i<xpu>v a7rA7;crru)S airuv eve<popeiTo)
throughout contemporary Hellenistic Greek as a metaphor for
experiencing. Probably ycuo-apeVous • ■ • eiroupaiaou, ptToxous
. . . dyiou, and Ka\6y yeutrapeyous aiwi/09 are three rhetorical
expressions for the initial experience described in Siml <f>amo-0eV
Tas. " The heavenly Gift " (1-775 Swpeas r>?s iirovpaviov) may be
the Christian salvation in general, which is then viewed as the
impartation of the holy Spirit, and finally as the revelation of the
higher world which even already is partly realized in the experi-
ence of faith. Note that (Jximo-Ge'tras is followed by yeuo-apeeous
kt\., as the light-metaphor is followed by the food-metaphor
in Philo's (de fuga et invent. 25) remarks upon the manna
(Ex l6 15- 16 ) : r) Beta o~vvra£is avrrj ttjv opaTiKrjv 4 /v XV v ^WTtJei T€
VI. 5, 6.] NO SECOND REPENTANCE 79
teal ofxov Kal yXvKatvei . . . tous Buj/wi'Tas Kal ireii>unTa<; icako-
KayaOias l<pr}hvvovcra. Also, that Suydueis Te ueMowTOS aiwi'OS l in-
cludes the thrilling experiences mentioned in 2 4 . The dramatic
turn comes in (v. 6 ) Kal TrapaTrcoroVTas. HapairiTTTetv is here used
in its most sinister sense ; it corresponds to aTroo-Trjvai (3 12 ), and
indeed both verbs are used in the LXX to translate the same
term ^>yQ. The usage in Wis 6 9 (/at) TrapaTria-qTi) 12 2 (tovs
7ra/3a7ri7TTcrovTas) paves the way for this sense of a deliberate
renunciation of the Christian God, which is equivalent to tKovo-ttus
afxapraveiv in io 26 . The sin against the holy Spirit, which Jesus
regarded as unpardonable, the mysterious afxapria irpbs ddvarov
of 1 Jn 5 16 , and this sin of apostasy, are on the same level. The
writer never hints at what his friends might relapse into.
Anything that ignored Christ was to him hopeless.
'ASuVaTOK (sc. Ictti) is now (v. 6 ) taken up in deaKcui/i£eu' (for
which Paul prefers the form avaKaivovv), a LXX term (e.g. Ps
5 1 12 ) which is actually used for the Christian start in life by
Barnabas (6 11 dva/ccuvuras r/ytids eV rrj acpecrei. roiv afxapTiwr), and
naturally of the divine action. ndXiK is prefixed for emphasis,
as in Isokr. Areopag. 3, tt}s l^pas tt]s 77-pos tov /3a<riA.ea iraXiv
avaKCKaivioyAeVris.
There have been various, vain efforts to explain the apparent harshness of
the statement. Erasmus took advvarov (like d=difficile) as "difficult";
Grotius said it was impossible " per legem Mosis" ; others take avaKaivl^eiv
to mean " keep on renewing," while some, like Schoettgen, Bengel, and
Wickham, fall back on the old view that while men could not, God might
effect it. But even the last-named idea is out of the question. If the writer
thought of any subject to ivaKawLfreiv, it was probably a Christian Si8d<XKa\ot
like himself ; but the efforts of such a Christian are assumed to be the channel
of the divine power, and no renewal could take place without God. There
is not the faintest suggestion that a second repentance might be produced by
God when human effort failed. The tenor of passages like io 28 '- and 12"
tells finally against this modification of the language. A similarly ominous
tone is heard in Philo's comment on Nu 30 10 in quod deter, pot. insid. 40 :
(p-fjffofiev didvoiav . . . iK^e^Xijudai Kal XVP av Qeov, tjtis r) yopAs Oeias ov
iraped^aro r) TrapaSe^a/x^vij eKovalws aVdis i^-qix^Kuae ... 7; 5' #7ra£ diafevx-
delaa Kal dioiKurdelcra <I>s &<rirovdos fifxP 1 T °u Tavrbs aiQvos iKTerdi-evrai, els rbv
dpxalov oIkov iiravekdeiv adwarovcra.
The reason why a second repentance is impossible is given
in dyaaTaupourras • • • irapaSeiYuaTi^ocTas, where avaaTavpovvras
is used instead of aravpovvras, for the sake of assonance (after
dvaKaivi£eiv), but with the same meaning. 'Avao-Taupow simply
means "to crucify," as, e.g., in Plato's Gorgias, 28 (tovs avrov i-n-ihwv
1 Tertullian's translation, " occidente iam aevo " (de Pudicitia, 20) shows
that his Greek text had omitted a line by accident :
NOYI0YPHMAAYN
AMEIITEMEAA
ONTOIAICONOCKAI,
i.e. Svv[&neis re fii\\]ovros alQvos.
SO THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 6
7ratSas T€ Kal yvvalKa to ccr^aTof avuaTavpwOfj i] Ka.TonriTTU>8fj) ;
Tbucyd. i. IIO ('Impos . . . irpoSocria A.?7<p#eis av^crravpoidrj) ;
JosepllUS (Ant. XI. 6. IO, ava<TTavpw<Tai tov MapSoxouov), etc. The
dva = sursum, not rursum, though the Greek fathers {e.g. Chrys.
Tt Si iariv dvaoravpowras ; aivwOev 7raXiv o-TavpouvTas), and several
of the versions (e.g. vg "rursum crucifigentes"), took it in the sense
of re-crucify. c EauT<ns : it is their crucifixion of Jesus. " The
thought is that of wilfulness rather than of detriment " (Vaughan).
In the story of Jesus and Peter at Rome, which Origen mentions as part
of the Acts of Paul {in Joh. xx. 12), the phrase, "to be crucified over again "
occurs in a different sense [Texte u. Unters. xxx. 3, pp. 271-272). Kal 6
Kiipios avrQ elwev' eiatpxop-ai eh Tr}v"Pu>fi7]v crTavpwdr]vai. Kai 6 Wtrpos elirev
avrip' Ki'»pte, ttclXiv aravpovcrai ; elirev avri^' val, Yiirpe, iraXiv o~ravpovfj.at.
Origen, quoting this as "Avudev fitXXw aravpovaOai, holds that such is the
meaning of avacrravpovv in He 6 5 .
The meaning of the vivid phrase is that they put Jesus out
of their life, they break off all connexion with him ; he is dead to
them. This is the decisive force of <TTavpova6ai in Gal 6 14 . The
writer adds an equally vivid touch in Kal TrapaSeiyixaTi^ocTas
( = T ov vidv Oeov KaTaTrarrj(ra<i kt\., io 29 ) — as if he is not worth
their loyalty ! Their repudiation of him proclaims to the world
that they consider him useless, and that the best thing they can
do for themselves is to put him out of their life. napa&eiy-
lAa-n^eie is used in its Hellenistic sense, which is represented by
Tidivai eis 7rapdS£<.y//.a in the LXX (Nah 3 6 ). Possibly the term
was already associated with impaling (cp. Nu 25* 7rapaSetyp.dTicrov
avrovs Kvpiu)), 1 but our author does not use it in the LXX sense
of " make an example of" (by punishing) ; the idea is of exposing
to contemptuous ignominy, in public (as in Mt i 19 ).
The Bithynians who had renounced Christianity proved to Pliny their
desertion by maligning Christ — one of the things which, as he observed, no
real Christian would do ("quorum nihil posse cogi dicuntur qui sunt re vera
Christiani "). " Omnes . . . Christi male dixerunt." When the proconsul
urges Polykarp to abandon Christianity, he tells the bishop, Xoidoprjaov rbv
Xpurrdv {Mart. Polyk. ix. 3). The language of ripos EPpaioi/s is echoed in
the saying of Jesus quoted in Apost. Const, vi. 18 : ofiroi eiai wepl &sv Kal 6
Kijpios WLKpws Kal cLTTOTdpLivs direcprjuaro X^ytav 6ti elal \pev86xpMTTOi Kal \pev5odi-
ddcTKaXoi, ol (3\a<T(priiJ.r]<TavTes rb irvevfia rfjs x° L P tT0S Kai airoTrrvcravTes tt)v nap
avrov dupeav fierd rr)v xdpiv, oh ovk a<pedr]<TeTai oihe iv ri2 aiibvi tovti$ oxjre iv
rip fxiXXovri. In Sir 31 30 {(iairTi'sdixevos airb veKpov Kal wdXiv dirrbfievos avrov,
tI dxpeXyaev tlj Xovrpy avrov ;) the allusion is to the taboo-law of Nu it) 11, 12 ;
the parallel is verbal rather than real. But there is a true parallel in
Mongolian Buddhism, which ranks five sins as certain "to be followed by a
hell of intense sufferings, and that without cessation . . . patricide, matricide,
killing a Doctor of Divinity {i.e. a lama), bleeding Buddha, sowing hatred
among priests. . . . Drawing blood from the body of Buddha is a figurative
expression, after the manner of He 6 6 " (J. Gilmour, Among the Mongols,
pp. 233, 234).
1 In alluding to the gibbeting law of Dt 2i-' 2f -, Josephus {Bell. Jud. iv.
5. 2) speaks of dvacrTai'poPj'.
VI. 6-8.] A PARABLE FROM NATURE 8 1
In the little illustration (vv. 7 - 8 ), which corresponds to what Jesus
might have put in the form of a parable, there are reminiscences
of the language about God's curse upon the ground (Gn 3 17 - 18 ) :
iTTiKardpaTos r) yrj . . . a/cdi 0as ko! TpifioAovs dvareAet, and also of
the words in Gn i 12 ko.1 ZiyveyKev r) yrj fioTavrjv x°P T0V > though the
writer uses eKcpepetv for avareWeiv, and prefers tlkt€lv to (Kcpepeiv
(in v. 7 ). The image of a plot or field is mentioned by Quintilian
{Instit. Orat. v. n. 24) as a common instance of the Trapa(3o\rj :
"ut, si animum dicas excolendum, similitudine utaris terrae quae
neglecta spinas ac dumos, culta fructus creat." The best Greek
instance is in Euripides {Hecuba, 592 f. : ovkow Seivov, ei yrj pikv
Kaxr) I -rvxovcra Katpov Oto&ev ev ora^uv <pipu, \ XPV°" r V & ap-apTova
wv ^pewi' avTTjV tvx<uv \ kolkov oYSwcri Kapirov ktX.). rUouaa of land,
as, e.g., in EX II 11 yrj ... Ik tov vctov toi) ovpavov ttUto.1 v8wp :
Is 55 10f- etc. As euOe-ros generally takes ek with the accusative, it
is possible that tiktouo-o, was meant to go with e/mvois. rewpyeiTai,
of land being worked or cultivated, is a common term in the papyri
{e.g. Syll. 429 s to. Tt xwpta d yewpyeu-ai) as well as in the LXX.
(a) Origen's homiletical comment {Philocalia, xxi. 9) is, to. yivb)j.tva. inrb tov
deov Tfpaa-Tia oiovel ver6s iariv' at 8e irpoaipkcrfis at didipopoi oiovel i] yeyeupy-q-
fievrj yrj iarl /cat 77 r)jj.e\r]pLevri, puy rrj <puo~ei u/s yr) rvyxdvovcra — an idea similar
to that of Jerome {tractatus de psalmo xcvi., Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3. 90 :
' ' apostolorum epistolae nostrae pluviae sunt spiritales. Quid enim dicit Paulus
in epistola ad Hebraeos ? Terra enim saepe venientem super se bibens imbrem,
et reliqua ")• {b) The Mishna directs that at the repetition of the second of the
Eighteen Blessings the worshipper should think of the heavy rain and pray for
it at the ninth Blessing (Berachoth, 5 1 ), evidently because the second declares,
" Blessed art thou, O Lord, who restorest the dead " (rain quickening the earth),
and the ninth runs, "Bless to us, O Lord our God, this year and grant us a
rich harvest and bring a blessing on our land." Also, " on the occasion of the
rains and good news, one says, Blessed be He who is good and does good "
(Berachoth, 9' 2 ). Cp. Marcus Aurelius, v. 7, evxv 'Adrjvalwv vcxov, v<rov, w <pl\e
Zed, Kara tt)s dpovpas ttjs 'Adrjvaluv /cat tQiv wedluiv.
MeTaXajxPaVci ( = participate in) is not a LXX term, but occurs
in this sense in Wis 18 9 etc. ; euXoyias occurs again in 12 17 (of Esau
the apostate missing his euXoyia), and there is a subtle suggestion
here, that those aione who make use of their divine privileges are
rewarded. What the writer has in mind is brought out in v. 10 ;
that he was thinking of the Esau-story here is shown by the
reminiscence of ay pov ov rjiXoyrjaev Kvpios (Gn 2 7 27 ).
The reverse side of the picture is now shown (v. 8 ).
Commenting on Gn 3 18 Philo fancifully plays on the derivation of the word
Tpi(3o\os (like " trefoil ") : iKaarov de tQiv iraduiv TpLJ36\ia etp-qicev, ewetdr) rpirrd
ioTiv, avrb re Kal rb iroLT)TiKov kclI rb 4k tovtcov dirorkXeo-fia {leg. alleg. 3 s9 ).
He also compares the eradication of evil desires in the soul to a gardener or
farmer burning down weeds {de Agric. 4, Trajr' 4kko\I/w, 4kt€/xQ . . . /cat ^7rt-
/cai'trto /cat ras pt'fas avrwv e<putd &XP 1 T & v vardrwv rrjs yrjs <f>\oybs piirr)v) ; but
in our epistle, as in Jn 15 6 , the burning is a final doom, not a process of severe
discipline.
6
82 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 8, 9.
'A8oKip.os is used as in i Co g 27 ; the moral sense breaks
through, as in the next clause, where the meaning of els KaG<ne
may be illustrated by Dt 29 22 and by Philo's more elaborate
description of the thunderstorm which destroyed Sodom (de Abrah.
2j); God, he says, showered a blast oix vSaros d\Xd 7rupo's upon
the city and its fields, by way of punishment, and everything was
consumed, €7T£i Se to. iv <pavepu> ko.1 V7rep yrj<; diravra KaTavd\w<rev
■fj <f>\.6tj, 77817 /cat ttjv yrjv avTr]v !kcu€ . . . wrkp tov 7x778' avdi<;
7TOTC Kapirbv iveyKeiv rj xXorjcpoprjaai to 7rapa7rav &ovr)6rjvai.. The
metaphor otherwise is inexact, for the reference cannot be to the
burning of a field in order to eradicate weeds ; our author is
thinking of final punishment ( = Kpi/xaTos aluvLov, 6 2 ), which he
associates as usual with fire (io 26 - 27 12 29 ). The moral applica-
tion thus impinges on the figurative sketch. The words Kcn-dpas
Ayyus actually occur in Aristides (Oral, in Rom. 370: to p.h>
7rpo^wpeiv aurots a i/3ovX.ovTO, dpLrj^avov kcu KaTapas eyyus). 1 There
is no thought of mildness in the term cyyvs, it being used, as in
8 13 , of imminent doom, which is only a matter of time. Mean-
while there is the ckSc^ (io 27 ).
Later on, this conception of unpardonable sins led to the whole
system of penance, which really starts from the discussion by
Hermas in the second century. But for our author the unpardon-
able sin is apostasy, and his view is that of a missionary. Modern
analogies are not awanting. Thus, in Dr. G. Warneck's book,
The Living Forces of the Gospel (p. 248), we read that " the Battak
Christians would have even serious transgressions forgiven ; but
if a Christian should again sacrifice to ancestors or have anything
to do with magic, no earnest Christian will speak in his favour ;
he is regarded as one who has fallen back into heathenism, and
therefore as lost."
9 Though I say this, beloved, I feel sure you will take the better" 1 course
that means salvation. 10 God is not unfair ; he will not forget what you have
done, or the love you have shown for his sake in ministering, as you still do, to
the saints. n It is my heart's desire that each of you would prove equally keen
upon realizing your full (ir\-qpo(popLa.v, IO 22 ) hope io the very end, 12 so that
instead of being slack you may imitate those who inherit the promises by their
steadfast faith.
The ground for his confident hope about his "dear friends"
(Tyndale, v. 9 ) lies in the fact that they are really fruitful (v. 7 ) in
what is the saving quality of a Christian community, viz. brotherly
love (v. 10 ). The God who blesses a faithful life (v. 7 ) will be sure
to reward them for that ; stern though he may be, in punishing
the disloyal, he never overlooks good service. Only (vv. 11 - 12 ),
1 Cp. Eurip. Hippolytus, 1070: alai, wpbs fjirap' Saicpvuv iyyvs r68e.
2 For some reason the softer linguistic form updocrova. is used here, as at
IO* 4 , in preference to KpeirTova..
VI. 9, 10.] ENCOURAGEMENT 83
the writer adds, put as much heart and soul into your realization
of what Christianity means as you are putting into your brotherl)
love ; by thus taking the better course, you are sure of God's
blessing. As ayaw^roi indicates (the only time he uses it), the
writer's affection leads him to hope for the best; he is deeply
concerned about the condition of his friends, but he does not
believe their case is desperate (v. 4 ). He has good hopes of them,
and he wishes to encourage them by assuring them that he still
believes in them. We may compare the remarks of Seneca to
Lucilius, Ep. xxix. 3, about a mutual friend, Marcellinus, about
whom both of them were anxious. Seneca says he has not yet
lost hope of Marcellinus. For wisdom or philosophy "is an art ;
let it aim at some definite object, choosing those who will make
progress (profecturos) and withdrawing from those of whom it
despairs — yet not abandoning them quickly, rather trying drastic
remedies when everything seems hopeless." Elsewhere, he
encourages Lucilius himself by assuring him of his friend's
confidence and hope (Ep xxxii. 2 : "habeo quidem fiduciam non
posse te detorqueri mansurumque in proposito "), and, in con-
nexion with another case, observes that he will not be deterred
from attempting to reform certain people (Ep. xxv. 2) : "I would
rather lack success than lack faith."
In Kal (epexegetic) exdueya (sc. TrpdyfxaTa) awTTjpias, e^o/xeva,
thus employed, is a common Greek phrase (cp. e.g. Marc.
Aurel. i. 6, dcra TOiavra tt?9 EAA^yiK?}? aywyfjs e^o'/Aeva : Musonius
(ed. Hense), xi., ^reiv 7rai8etas ixojjava (v. I. e^d/xevov) : Philo, de
Agric. 22, to. Se Kaprcpias Kal o-uxfrpoavvrj's . . . i)(6fjLeva) for what
has a bearing upon, or is connected with ; here, for what pertains
to and therefore promotes crtoT^pia (the opposite of Kardpa
and Kaucris). The reason for this confidence, with which he
seeks to hearten his readers, lies in their good record of practical
service (tov epyov vp.wv ktA.) which God is far too just to ignore.
After all, they had some fruits as well as roots of Christianity
(v. 10 ). 'Em\a6eo-0cu is an infinitive of conceived result (Burton's
Moods and Tenses, 371^; Blass, § 391. 4), instead of Iva c. subj.,
as, e.g., in 1 Jn i 9 , or ware c. infinitive; cp. Xen. Cyrop. iv. 1. 20,
StKaios et a.vTiya.pl'QzaQ ai?- The text of too epyou uuwy Kal tt)s
dydTrTjs was soon harmonized with that of 1 Th i 3 by the in-
sertion of Tot) kottov after Kal (so D c K L 69*. 256. 263. 161 1*.
2005. 2127 boh Theodoret, etc.). The relative r\v after dya^s
has been attracted into the genitive t}s (as in 9 20 ). One practi-
cal form of this SiaKomy is mentioned in io 33 - 34 . Here els
to oyoua auTou goes closely with SiaKo^aayTes ktA., as well as
with eVeSei'laade, in the sense of " for his sake." In Pirke Aboth,
1 See Dolon's remark in the Rhesus of Euripides (161, 162) : ovkovv woveb
flip XPV> fovovvTo. 5' d^tov nuxdbv (pipeadai..
84 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 10, 11.
2 16 , R. Jose's saying is quoted, "Let all thy works be done for
the sake of heaven " (literally Qvb, i.e. eis 6vop.a, as here and in
Ign. Rom. 9 3 17 aydwrj tu)V iKK\r)criwv t&v 8e£ap.ei>u}v pe €i? ovofxa
"[rjaov XpioTou). Toes dyiois, the only place (except 13 24 ) where
the writer uses this common term for "fellow-Christians"; God
will never be so unjust as to overlook kindness shown to " his
own."
The personal affection of the writer comes out not only in
the dyaiTT]Toi of v. 9 , but again (v. 11 ) in the deep eTriOujaoCfxec, a
term charged with intense yearning (as Chrysostom says, 7raTpi/«7s
^lAoo-Topyids), and in the individualizing eKa<nw (cp. 3 12, 13 ). He
is urgent that they should display rr)\> aurr\v <nrou8r]i/ with regard
to their Christian eX-iris as they display in the sphere of their
Christian dyd-mr]. This does not mean that he wishes them to be
more concerned about saving their own souls or about heaven
than about their duties of brotherly love ; his point is that the
higher knowledge which he presses upon their minds is the one
security for a Christian life at all. Just as Paul cannot assume
that the warm mutual affection of the Thessalonian Christians
implied a strict social morality (see below on 13 4 ), or that the
same quality in the Philippian Christians implied moral dis-
crimination (Ph i 9 ), so our author pleads with his friends to
complete their brotherly love by a mature grasp of what their
faith implied. He reiterates later on the need of <£iA.aSeA</x'a
(13 1 ), and he is careful to show how it is inspired by the very
devotion to Christ for which he pleads (io 19 " 24 ). nXrjpo^opia (not
a LXX term) here is less subjective than in io 22 , where it denotes
the complete assurance which comes from a realization of all
that is involved in some object. Here it is the latter sense of
fulness, scope and depth in their — IX-xl?. 1 This is part and
parcel of the TeA«6V?/s to which he is summoning them to
advance (6 1 ). The result of this grasp of what is involved in
their faith will be (v. 12 ) a vigorous constancy, without which even
a kindly, unselfish spirit is inadequate. For €c8eiKkuo-0cu o-n-ouSrji'
compare Herodian's remark that the soldiers of Severus in a.d.
193 7racmv eveSeiKvuvro irpoOvp-iav /ecu o-irovorjv (ii. IO. 19), Magn.
53 61 (iii. B.C.), airo&ti^Lv iroiovfAtvos t^s 7rept to. fiiyiara cnrov&rjs,
and Syll. 342 41 (i. B.C.) ttjv p-eyiar-qv evSeiKwrai cr7rouS?/v eis rqv
v-n-ep ttJs 7raT^tSo5 (TinT-qpiav. The Greeks used the verb as we use
"display," in speaking of some inward quality. This ardour
has to be kept up dxpi t^Xous (cp. pseudo-Musonius, Epp. 1, in
Hercher's Epistolog. Graeci, 401 f. : Tr/povvTas Se tjv cloven vvv
TTpoOao-Lv axpi tAous <f>i\ocro(pf}<Tai) ; it is the sustained interest
in essential Christian truth which issues practically in fiaKpoOupia
(v. 12 ), or in the confident attitude of hope (3 6 - 14 ).
1 For i\wL8os, wiarews is read in W 1S67.
VI. 11, 12.] EXAMPLES OF FAITH 85
Aristotle, in Rhet. ii. 19. 5, argues that o5 77 dpxv dvvarai yevtadai, Kal
rb tAos' oi'bkv yap ylyverai ovS' &px^ai yiyvecrdai tuiv aSvv&TWV, a paradox
which really means that " if you want to know whether the end of any course
of action, plan, scheme, or indeed of anything — is possible, you must look to
the beginning : beginning implies end : if it can be begun, it can also be
brought to an end " (Cope).
In v. 12 the appeal is rounded off with Xva at) ywOpoi ycVrjaOc,
that you may not prove remiss (repeating vwOpoi from 5 11 , but
in a slightly different sense : they are to be alert not simply to
understand, but to act upon the solid truths of their faith),
fiip.T]Tal 8e ktA. Hitherto he has only mentioned people who
were a warning ; now he encourages them by pointing out that
they had predecessors in the line of loyalty. This incentive is
left over for the time being ; the writer returns to it in his
panegyric upon faith in chapter 11. Meanwhile he is content
to emphasize the steadfast faith (7ruxTea)s Kal p.aKpo6vp.ia<;, a
hendiadys) that characterizes this loyalty. MaKpo0up.ia means
here (as in Ja 5 7f -) the tenacity with which faith holds out.
Compare Menander's couplet (Kock's Com. Attic. Fragm. 549),
avOpwrros gjv fJL7]?>eTroT€ tt)v aXviriav \ cutou Ttapa. 6eu)v, aXXa Tr/v
fi.aKpoBvp.iav, and Test. Jos. 2" /*eya cpa.pp.aKov icniv rj p.aKpo6vp.ia \
Kal iroXXa. ayada. Si'Swcriv 17 virop.ovrj. But this aspect of 7TiOTis IS
not brought forward till io 85f -, after the discussion of the priest-
hood and sacrifice of Christ. In kXtjpovououctwi' T<is e-jrayyeXias
the writer implies that hope is invariably sustained by a promise
or promises. He has already mentioned fj inayyeXia (4 1 ).
KXT/povo/xetv Tas ZirayyeXias can hardly mean "get a promise of
something " ; as the appended 81& moreus Kal p.aKpo9uu£as sug-
gests, it denotes " coming into possession of what is promised."
This is proved by the equivalent e-rreTuxe t^s c-rraYYeXias in v. 15 .
Taking Abraham as the first or as a typical instance of steadfast
faith in God's promises, the writer now (vv. 13-19 ) lays stress not upon
the human quality, but upon the divine basis for this undaunted
reliance. Constancy means an effort. But it is evoked by a
divine revelation ; what stirs and sustains it is a word of God.
From the first the supreme Promise of God has been guaranteed
by him to men so securely that there need be no uncertainty or
hesitation in committing oneself to this Hope. The paragraph
carries on the thought of vv. 11 - 12 ; at the end, by a dexterous turn,
the writer regains the line of argument which he had dropped
when he turned aside to incite and reprove his readers (5 llf -)-
13 For in making a promise to Abraham God " swore by himself" {since hi
could swear by none greater), 14 " / will indeed bless you and multiply you."
16 Thus it was {i.e. thanks to the divine Oath) that Abraham by his steadfast-
ness obtained (so 1 1 33 ) what he had been promised. 16 For as Y men swear by
1 To make the connexion clear, some inferior texts (C D c K L 6. 33. 104.
1 610, etc.) add y-tv.
86 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 13, 14.
a greater than themselves, and as an oath means to them a guarantee that ends
any dispute, ll God, in his desire to afford the heirs of the Promise a special
proof of the solid character of his purpose, interposed with an oath ; 18 so that
by these two solid facts (the Promise and the Oath), where it is itnpossible for
God to be false, we refugees might have strong encouragement (TrapdKXtjcriv, see
on I2 5 ) to seize the hope set before us, 19 anchoring the soul to it safe and sure,
as it " enters the inner" Presence " behind the veil."
As usual, he likes to give a biblical proof or illustration
(vv. 13 - 14 ), God's famous promise to Abraham, but the main point
in it is that God ratified the promise with an oath.
Our author takes the OT references to God's oath quite naively. Others
had felt a difficulty, as is shown by Philo's treatise de Abrahatno (46) : ' ' God,
enamoured of this man [i.e. Abraham], for his faith (ttLo-tlv) in him, gives him
in return a pledge (irlffriv), guaranteeing by an oath (ttjv di 8pKov fiefialucnv)
the gifts he had promised ... for he says, ' I swear by myself (Gn 22 16 ) —
and with him a word is an oath— for the sake of confirming his mind more
steadfastly and immovably than ever before." But the references to God's
oaths were a perplexity to Philo ; his mystical mind was embarrassed by their
realism. In de sacrif Abelis et Caini (28, 29) he returns to the subject.
Hosts of people, he admits, regard the literal sense of these OT words as
inconsistent with God's character, since an oath implies {fxaprvpla Beov irepl
■n-pa.yfj.aTOi afupurfiriTovntvov) God giving evidence in a disputed matter ;
whereas dei£ ovSev dbrfKov ovdt dixcpi.o-pTiToviJ.evov, God's mere word ought to
be enough : 6 5e debs /cat Xtyuv ino-rds dcriv, Sio-re /cat roiis \6yovs aiirov
/3e/3at6Ti77-os PveKa fir/div SpKwv 5ta<p^peti\ He inclines to regard the OT
references to God's oaths as a condescension of the sacred writer to dull
minds rather than as a condescension upon God's part. In Leg. Allegor. iii. 72
he quotes this very passage (Gn 22 16, 17 ), adding : eS /cat rb #p/cy jSe^atwcrat
tt)v virbaxeo-w /cat 6'p/cy 6 'eon petrel' bp$s yap Srt oi lead irtpov bixvvei debs,
ovdev yap avrov Kpelrrov, d\\d Kad' eavrov, 6's iffri tt&vtuv aptaros. But he
feels bound to explain it. Some of his contemporaries had begun to take
exception to such representations of God, on the ground that God's word
required no formal confirmation — it confirmed itself by being fulfilled — and
that it was absurd \8.toitov) to speak of God swearing by himself, in order to
bear testimony to himself. 1 Philo {ibid. 73) attempts to meet this objection
by urging that only God can bear testimony to himself, since no one else
knows the divine nature truly ; consequently it is appropriate for him to add
confirmation to his word, although the latter by itself is amply deserving of
belief. In Berachoth, 32. 1 (on Ex 32 13 ), it is asked, " What means 13? R.
Eleazar answered: 'Thus saith Moses to God (Blessed be He!), 'Lord of
all the world, hadst thou sworn by heaven and earth, I would say, even as
heaven and earth shall perish, so too thine oath shall perish. But now thou
hast sworn by thy Great Name, which lives and lasts for ever and ever ; so
shall thine oath also last for ever and ever.' "
Etxe (v. 13 ) with infin. = iSvvaro as usual, "flfioo-ei'. . . . ei
fiTjc . . . euXoyrjo-u) Both the LXX (Thackeray, pp. 83, 84) and the
papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 205 f.) show that e* fir/v after
6/jii'veiv in oaths is common as an asseveration ; in some cases,
as here, the classical form rj pr/v, from which et fi-qv arose by
itacism, is textually possible. The quotation (v. 14 ) is from the
promise made to Abraham after the sacrifice of Isaac (Gn 2 2 16 - 17 ):
holt i/j.avTov w/JLoaa . . . ei fxi)v tvkoywv euAoyr/cru) <re, /cat irAij-
1 This is the point raised in Jn 8 13f -
VI. 15-17.] THE OATH OF GOD 8;
Ovvwv ttXtjOwQ) to o-rep/m crov. The practical religious value of
God's promise being thus (v. 15 ) confirmed is now brought out for
the present generation (vv. 16f - — another long sentence). Kara
toG p,ei£oko$, i.e. by God. Which, Philo argues, is irreverent :
dcr€/?ets av vopucrOeiev ol <pdo-KOVTe<; ofivvvai Kara deov (-Leg. Allegor.
iii. 73), since only swearing by the Name of God is permissible (cp.
Dt 6 13 ). But our author has no such scruples (see above). And
he is quite unconscious of any objection to oaths, such as
some early Christian teachers felt (e.g. Ja 5 ]2 ) ; he speaks of the
practice of taking oaths without any scruples. " Hie locus . . .
docet aliquem inter Christianos jurisjurandi usum esse legiti-
mum . . . porro non dicit olim fuisse in usu, sed adhuc vigere
pronuntiat " (Calvin). 'AiriXoyias, dispute or quarrel (the derived
sense in 7 7 x^P^ 5 Tdo-^s dvTiAoyia?, there is no disputing). Els
Pe(3at<T(oai^ only occurs once in the LXX (Lv 25 s3 ), but is a
current phrase in the papyri (cp. Deissmann's Bible Studies,
163 f.) for " by way of guarantee " ; it is opposed to €is d^eV^o-iv,
and used here as in Wis 6 19 7rpoo"OYj7 8* vopaav /?£/3atwcris d<p6ap-
a-tas. In Philo (see on v. 13 ) it is the oath which is guaranteed ;
here the oath guarantees. The general idea of v. 17 is that of
OGIS. (ii. B.C.), oVcos av eis tov airavTa ^povov anivrjTa Kai dp.«Ta-
6era peyrp rd re 7rpos tov deov Tipia Kal rd 7rpos tov AOr/vaiov
cpiXdvdpwTra. *Ev » ( = Sto, Theophylact), such being the case.
riepio-aoTcpoK, which goes with emSellcu, is illustrated by what Philo
says in de Abrahamo, 46 (see above) : "abundantius quam sine
juramento factum videretur" (Bengel). It is an equivalent
for Trepicro-oTepws, which, indeed, B reads here. 'EmSetlcu (cp.
Elephantine-Papyri [1907] 1 7 (iv. B.C.) eTrtSetfdrco 8e 'HpaKActS^s
on dv iyKaXrji A^/z^Tpiai ei'avTiov dvSpdv rpiwv) : the verb, which
is only once used of God in the LXX (Is 37 s6 vvv Se i-n-eSe^a
i$epr)fxwo-a.i Wvq ktA.), means here "to afford proof of." The
writer uses the general plural, tois K\r]po»'6p.ots rf]s i-nayyeklas, 1
instead of the singular " Abraham," since the Promise in its
mystical sense applied to the entire People, who had faith
like that of Abraham. The reference is not specifically to
Isaac and Jacob, although these are called his o-uyKXTipocopoi in
1 1 9 . In t6 dp.€Td0€TOK ttjs |3ou\r]s our author evidently chooses
fiovXrjs for the sake of the assonance with PouXoperos. 'ApeTd-
fle-ros is a synonym for d/ctVT/Tos (cp. above on v. 17 and
Schol. on Soph. Antig. 1027), and, as the papyri show,
had a frequent connexion with wills in the sense of " irrevoc-
able." Here, in connexion with ftovXrjs, it implies final
determination (cp. 3 Mac 5 U - 12 ); the purpose had a fixed
1 Eusehius once {Dem. iv. 15. 40) omits ttjs e7rayye'\ia.s, and once {ibid.
v. 3. 21) reads ttjs pa<n\tlas, either accidentally or with a recollection of
Ja2 5 .
88 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 17-19.
character or solidity about it. The verb i^eo-ireuo-ev (" inter-
vened ") does not occur in the LXX, and is here used intransi-
tively, instead of, as usual (cp. e.g. Dion. Halic. Ant. ix. 59. 5 ;
OGIS. 43 7 76 etc.), with some accusative like crw^xas. In Jos.
Ant. vii. 8. 5 it is used intransitively, but in the sense of " inter-
ceding " (jreio-Oels 8' 6 'Ioja/3os kcu rrjv avdyKrjv olvtov KaroiKTeipas
ifxto-LTevcre Trpbs tov /3acriXea). The oath is almost certainly that
just mentioned. Less probable is the interpretation (Delitzsch,
Hofmann, M. Stuart, von Soden, Peake, Seeberg, Wickham)
which regards the oath referred to in vv. 16f * as the oath in the
writer's favourite psalm, no 4 :
w/jLocrev Kupios kcu ov iA€Ta/x€\r]6rjcreTai
%v el tepeus cis tov al£>va. kcito, ryjv rd^tv Me\)(icre8eK.
This oath does refer to the priesthood of Jesus, which the writer
is about to re-introduce (in v. 20 ) ; but it is not a thought which
is brought forward till 7 20 - 21 - 28 ; and the second line of the
couplet has been already quoted (5 6 ) without any allusion to the
first.
In v. 18 KaTCKJjeu'yeii' and tkis are connected, but not as in
Wis 14 6 (Noah = 17 e\iri<; tov Koafxov eirl cr^cStas, Kara^vyovaa).
Here, as cXms means what is hoped for, i.e. the object of expecta-
tion, "the only thought is that we are moored to an immoveable
object" (A. B. Davidson). The details of the anchor-metaphor
are not to be pressed (v. 19 ); the writer simply argues that
we are meant to fix ourselves to what has been fixed for us by
God and in God. To change the metaphor, our hope roots
itself in the eternal order. What we hope for is unseen, being
out of sight, but it is secure and real, and we can grasp it by
faith.
(a) Philo {Quaest. in Exod. 22 20 ) ascribes the survival and success of the
Israelites in Egypt 81a ttjv £irl rbv aoiTTJpa. Oebv KaTa<pvyrji> , 8s £% airopuiv nai
afxrixo-vwv iiriir£fj.\pas tt)v ebepytnv Svvafiiv ippvaaro rovs LK^ras. (b) t6v is
inserted in v. 18 before 6eov (by N* A C P 33. 1245. 1739. 1827. 2005 Ath.
Chrys.), probably to harmonize with 6 6e6% in v. 17 (where 1912 omits 6). But
6e6v ("one who is God ") is quite apposite.
napdKXrjo-ii' goes with Kpa.TTJ<rai (aor. = " seize," rather than
" hold fast to," like Kparelv in 4 14 ), and 01 KctTa^uyoVTes stands by
itself, though there is no need to conjecture 01 Kara cpvyyv cWes =
in our flight (so J. J. Reiske, etc.). Is not eternal life, Philo
asks, rj 7rpo9 to ov Karafyvyr) (de fuga, 15)? In ttjs TrpoK€i[Jt,eVr|s
eXiuSos, TrpoKeifjievrjs must have the same sense as in 12 2 ; the
colloquial sense of "aforesaid," which is common in the papyri
(e.g. OP. 1275 25 cis rrjv TrpoKifxevrjv KUifX7]v), would be flat.
'Ao^aXrj tc kcu $e$aiav reflects one of the ordinary phrases in
Greek ethics which the writer is so fond of employing. Cp.
VI. 19.] THE ANCHOR OF HOPE 89
Plutarch, de comm. not. io6itr, kcu'toi irao-a /cardA/ii/as iv tuS
(tocj>w /cat fxvrjfjLr] to dcjc/mAcs €\ov<ra /cat (Si/3atov ktA. : Sextus Empir.
adv. log. ii. 374, €S to vtroTiQi.\x.evov rj VTroTiOeTai fiefiaiov ccrn
/cat dcrc/>aA€s : and Philo, quis rer. div. 62, /caTaA.Tic£is aa<pa\r]<; /cat
/3e/3ata. The dyKupa of hope is safe and sure, as it is fixed in
eternity. All hope for the Christian rests in what Jesus has
done in the eternal order by his sacrifice.
Chrysostom's comment on the ' ' anchor " metaphor is all that is needed :
uxrirep yap t) dyicvpa e"^apTT]6e7cra rod TrXolov, ovk dcpl-qaev avrb irepuptpeadai,
Kav p-vpioi TrapaaaXevuxTiv &vefioi, dXX' ^aprijOelaa ebpaTov TroieT' ovtu ko.1 t\
iXiris. The anchor of hope was a fairly common metaphor in the later Greek
ethic {e.g. Heliod. vii. 25, irdaa eXirlbos dyicvpa Travroiws dviairaarai, and Epict.
Fragm. (30) 89, oxire vavv £% evbs dyicvplov ovre j3lov £k puas eXirlbos bpfjuariov),
but our author may have taken the religious application from Philo, who
writes {de Somniis, i. 39), l ov %/"? KareTrrrix^ai rbv iXirlbi delas <rvp.p.axlas
ecpopfiovvra (lies moored to). He does not use it as a metaphor for stability,
however, like most of the Greeks from Euripides {e.g. Helena, 277, dyicvpa
5' rj /iov rets rvxas &xei p-bvij) and Aristophanes {e.g. Knights, 1244, XeirTT)
tis iXirls tor i(p' fjs bxovfieda) onwards, as, e.g., in the most famous use of the
anchor-metaphor, 2 that by Pythagoras (Stob. Eclog. 3 : ttXovtos dadevrjs
dyicvpa, 56£a ?n dcrdeveo-ripa . . . rives oOf dyicvpai bvvaral ; <ppbvi}cris,
p.eya\o\pvx<-a> dvdpla' ravras ovdels x fl f x< ^ v craXevei).
Suddenly he breaks the metaphor, 3 in order to regain the
idea of the priesthood of Jesus in the invisible world. Hope
enters the unseen world ; the Christian hope, as he conceives it,
is bound up with the sacrifice and intercession of Jesus in the
Presence of God, and so he uses language from the ritual of
Lv i6 2f - about Aaron "passing inside the veil," or curtain that
screened the innermost shrine. To this conception he returns
in 9 3f - after he has described the vital functions of Jesus as
Upevs (6 20f -). For at last he has reached what he regards as the
cardinal theme of his homily. The first paragraph (7 1 ' 3 ), which
is one long sentence in Greek, applies and expands eis t6i> aiwea,
the first note of Melchizedek's priesthood being that it is per-
petual, thus typifying the priesthood of Jesus. The next is (7 4 " 10 ),
that it is prior and superior to the levitical priesthood ; this is
1 The comparison between hope and a voyage in de Abrahamo, 9, is
different : 6 5e iXtrl^wv, ws avrb StjXoi Todvo/xa, iXXnrris, itpiipevos /xev del rod
KaXou, yurjirw 5* icpiKfcrdai tovtov Sebvvrj/ievos, dXX' eot/cws reus TrX£ovo-ii>, 0!
cnrevbovres els Xiiie'vas Karalpetv OaXaTrevovcnv ivopixlcracrdat /xr] bwd/xevoi.
This is nearer to the thought of Ro 8 24 - 25 .
2 For the anchor as a symbol on tombs, pagan and Christian, see Le
Blant's Inscr. Chret. de Gaule, ii. 158, 312. Contrast with He 6 18 - 19 the
bitter melancholy of the epitaph in the Greek Anthology (ix. 49) : iXirh /cat
ffii, Ti>xv> fx^ya X a ^P ere ' r ^ v ^'M^' efipov \ ovdev £llo'i %' u/xiv' iral^ere robs
fxer £fi£.
3 A similar mixture of metaphor in Ep. Aristeas, 230 {ae fxev ov Svvarbv
ion TTTCuaai, ira.cn yap x^p LTa ^ ecnrapicas at ^Xaardvovcnv etivotav, 7) to. /xeyio-To,
tuv 6irXwv KaTurxvowa irepiXaLc^dvei rrjv p.eylcTi\v dcrcpdXeiav), and Philo, de
praemiis, 2 (rairrTjs 5' 6 irouJro? awbpos iarlv £\wls, 7? irrjyr) tujv filuv).
90 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VI. 20-VII. 1.
implied in the former claim, but the writer works it out fancifully
from the allusion to tithes.
20 There (Sirov for the classical Siroi) Jesus entered for us in advance, when
he became highpriest "for ever with the rank of Melchizedek.'" l For
" Melchizedek, the king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God," who " met
Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him "• -
2 who had " a tenth part (deKdrTjv, sc. fxoipa.i>) of everything " assigned him by
Abraham — this Melchizedek is (sc. &i>) primarily a " king of righteousness "
(that is the meaning of his name) ; then, besides that, "king of Salem"
(which means, king of peace). s He has neither father nor mother nor gene-
alogy, neither a beginning to his days nor an end to his life, but, resembling
the Son of God, continues to be "priest " permanently.
This paragraph and that which follows (vv. 4 " 10 ) are another
little sermon, this time on the story of Gn 14 18 - 20 . In 6 20 -7 3
the writer starts from the idea that Jesus is dp^icpeus eis t6v
alCjva Kara tt/v rd^tv MeA^io-eSe/c, and shows how the Melchizedek
priesthood was eis tov aluva, i.e. explaining Ps no 4 from Gn
14 18 " 20 . Eicrfj\0€i> in 6 20 is explained later, in 9 12f \ rip6Spo|xos
recalls apx^yos (2 10 ), with its suggestion of pioneering. The
term is only used in the LXX of the days capos, irpo^pojxoi
<TTa.<pv\rj<i (Nu 13 22 ), or of early fruit (u>s TrpoSpo/xos o-vkov, Is 28 4 ) ;
the present sense occurs, however, in Wis 12 8 , where wasps or
hornets are called the irpoopopoi of God's avenging host. The
thought here is of Christ entering heaven as we are destined to
do, after him, once like him (5 s ) we are " perfected." Vv. 1 ' 8
in ch. 7 are another of the writer's long sentences : outos 6 MeX-
XureSeic . . . p,eVei tepeus eis to oini'eKe's is the central thought,
but the subject is overloaded with quotations and comments,
including a long fieV . . . %£ clause. The length of the sentence
and the difficulty of applying fievei lepevs eis to 8ir)vei<h to
Melchizedek have led some editors to make Jesus the subject of
the sentence : ovtos (Jesus) yap (6 McX^io-eSeK . . . t<S vm Oeov)
p.eW tepevs €is tov alwva. But the oSros, as v. 4 shows, is
Melchizedek, and the theory is wrecked upon v. 8 , for it is quite
impossible to take eW ktX. as " in the upper sanctuary (sc. iartv)
there is One of whom the record is that He lives." There is a
slight but characteristic freedom at the very outset in the use of
the story, e.g. in 6 owarrrjo-as ktX. The story implies this, but
does not say it. It was the king of Sodom who i£r)\$€v eh
uvvdvrrjo-Lv avru) perd to vTrocrTpiij/au clvtov curb t^s KOirq^, but as
Melchizedek is immediately said to have brought the conquering
hero bread and wine, our writer assumed that he also met
Abraham.
An interesting example of the original reading being preserved in an
inferior group of MSS is afforded by 6 <ruvavTT]cras (C* L P). The variant
5s ffwavrria-as (n A B C 2 D K W 33. 436. 794. 1831. 1837. I?I2), which
makes a pointless anacolouthon, was due to the accidental reduplication of C
VII. 1, 2.1 MELCHIZEDEK 91
(OCCYN for OCYN), though attempts have been made to justify this
reading by assuming an anacolouthon in the sentence, or a parenthesis in
05 . . . 'Appadfi, or carelessness on the part of the writer who began with a
relative and forgot to carry on the proper construction. Some curious
homiletic expansions have crept into the text of vv. 1 - 2 . After fiaaCklwv two
late minuscules (456. 460) read 8ti £8lw$ev tovs dWocpvXovs /cat ^etXaro Awr
p.era -rrdo-qs at'xMaXaWas, and after avrdv, D* vt 330. 440. 823 put /cat ( A/Spaa/A )
eu\oyri<Tdeis far aCrrov. The latter is another (cp. II 23 ) of the glosses which
were thrown up by the Latin versions.
In v. 2 efie'piarcy is substituted for the IStoKCK of the LXX (which
reappears in v. 4 ), in order to make it clear that Abraham's gift
was a sort of tithe. Tithes were not paid by the Hebrews
from spoils of war ; this was a pagan custom. But such is the
interpretation of the story in Philo, e.g. in his fragment on Gn
14 18 {Fragments of Philo, ed. J. Rendel Harris, p. 72): i-a yap
tov TroXijxov apicrreia SiSuhtl t<3 Upzl K<xi Tas ttJs vlkt)<; a.7rapxas.
UpoTrpi.iri.a-Ta.TTq ok kcu ayi.wTa.T7) iracrwv a7rap^aJv 17 oeKaTrj 01a. to
TravTeXeiov etvai tov apiO/xov, a.(p' ov ko.1 tois Upevai. *ai vewKopois
al Se/carai TrpoaTa^ei vo/xov Kapirwv koX 6pep.p.aTwv a7rootcSovTat,
apfavros Trjs drrapx^s 'A/3pad/jL, os ko.1 tov yivovs ap)(7]yeT7]<; io~Tiv.
Or again in de congressu, 17, where he describes the same incident
as Abraham offering God ras SeKdVas ^aptcr-rr/pta rf)s V1/07S.
The fantastic interpretation of the Melchizedek episode is all the writer's
own. What use, if any, was made of Melchizedek in pre-Christian Judaism,
is no longer to be ascertained. Apparently the book of Jubilees contained a
reference to this episode in Abraham's career, but it has been excised for
some reason (see R. H. Charles' note on Jub 13 25 ). Josephus makes little of
the story {Ant. i. 10. 2). He simply recounts how, when Abraham returned
from the rout of the Assyrians, dwrivr-qo-e 5' atrrtp 6 tuiv 1,oooultwv /JacrtXt i>s els
rdrrov Tivd ov KaXovai TleSLov fiaaiKiKdv ?vda 6 ttjs 2oXi//ua 7rc>Xews vwo8e'x eTat
jUaaCXevs avrbv MeXxtcreSe'/cijs-. crrj/xaivei 8e tovto pacriXevs dinaios' /cat t\v de
toiovtos bp.o\oyovp.ivo}s, ws 5ta TavT-qv avrbv tt)v alriav /cat tepe'a yivtadai tov
Oeov. tt\v fxivTOi ZoXf/tta vorepov indXecrav 'IepocrcSXi'/ia. ixopriyv ' 6 <5£ ovtos 6
MeXx«rec)e/c77S rd} ' Aflpd/jLov crTparai S-fvia ko.1 ttoWiiv dcpdovlav tuiv iTrirrjSeluv
Traptcrxe, xai Trapa ttjv evwxla.v o.vrbv r iiraivelv ijp^aTo ko.1 rbv debv eu\oye?v
urroxeiplovs avri2 w 01.7)0 o.vt a rovs ex^povs. 'Afipdfxov de SiSdvros /cat tt\v 8eKaT7\v
ttjs Xetas avriZ, ■Kpoo-8ix e ™ TV" obaiv kt\. In the later Judaism, however,
more interest was taken in Melchizedek (cp. M. Friedlander in Revue des
£tudes Juives, v. pp. I f. ). Thus some applied the 110th psalm to Abraham
(Mechiltaon Ex 15 7 , r. Gen. 55. 6), who was ranked as the priest after the order
of Melchizedek, while Melchizedek was supposed to have been degraded
because he (Gn 14 19 ) mentioned the name of Abraham before that of God !
This, as Bacher conjectures, represented a protest against the Christian view
of Melchizedek (Agada der Tannaiten 2 , i. p. 259). It denotes the influence
of Ilpcis 'Efipalovs. Philo, as we might expect, had already made more of the
episode than Josephus, and it is Philo's method of interpretation which gives
the clue to our writer's use of the story. Thus in Leg. A I leg. iii. 25, 26
he points out (a) that MeXx'cecJ^/c (HacriXia re ttjs elpfjvTjs — 2aX?7yit tovto yap
epfiTjveveTai — /cai lepia eavrov ireTrolrjKev 1 6 deds (in Gn I4 1B ), and allegorizes the
reference into a panegyric upon the peaceful, persuasive influence of the really
royal mind. He then (b) does the same with the sacerdotal reference. 'AM
1 The same sort of perfect as recurs in IIpos "Efipatovs (e.g. j 6 and II 28 ).
92 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VII. 2, 3.
6 i*kv MeXxtceS^/c dvrl vdaros olvov wpocr(p€p^T(i3 Kal ttotl&tu) /ecu aKpaTitfru
i/'i'Xas, iva Kardaxeroi yiviiivrai Oeiq fitdrj vr)<pa\eu>Tlpa vqipeus avrr/s. lepevs
yap icrri \6yos /cXrjpov l^wy rbv cWa Kal v\prj\ws wepl avrou Kal inrepbyKW, Kal
fieyaXoTrpeirQs Xoyi^dfievos' tov yap v^/Lutov iarlv lepevs, quoting Gn 14 18 and
hastening to add, ovx Sri icrl tis dXXos ov\ v\picros. Philo points out thus
the symbolism of wine (not water) as the divine intoxication which raises the
soul to lofty thought of God ; but our author does not even mention the food
and drink, though later on there was a tendency to regard them as symbolizing
the elements in the eucharist. His interest in Melchizedek lies in the parallel
to Christ. This leads him along a line of his own, though, like Philo, he sees
immense significance not only in what scripture says, but in what it does not
say, about this mysterious figure in the early dawn of history.
In vv. 1 - 2 the only points in the original tale which are
specially noted are (a) that his name means paaiXeus 8ikchoctuVt|s ;
(?;) that laXrjfA, his capital, means eip^r] ; and (c) inferentially that
this primitive ideal priest was also a king. Yet none of these
is developed. Thus, the writer has no interest in identifying
2aX^/x.. All that matters is its meaning. He quotes lepevs tov
6eov tov vij/Lo-Tov, but it is Upevs alone that interests him. The
fact about the tithes (w Kal Sexd-rnic euro iran-we ejxe'picjei/ 'AfJpadp,)
is certainly significant, but it is held over until v. 4 . What strikes
him as far more vital is the silence of the record about the birth
and death of Melchizedek (v. 3 ). AiKaioo-umj as a royal character-
istic (see Introd. pp. xxxiif.) had been already noted in con-
nexion with Christ (i 8f- ) ; but he does not connect it with elpiyv*;,
as Philo does, though the traditional association of 8iKaioo-vvr) /ecu
dprjvr) with the messianic reign may have been in his mind. In
the alliteration (v. 3 ) of d-n-dTwp, durJTtup, dyei'eaXoY'nTos, the third
term is apparently coined by himself; it does not mean "of no
pedigree," nor "without successors," but simply (cp. v. 6 ) "de-
void of any genealogy." Having no beginning (since none is
mentioned), M. has no end. 'AirdTwp and dp/njcop are boldly
lifted from their pagan associations. In the brief episode of Gn
14 18 ' 20 , this mysterious Melchizedek appears only as a priest of
God ; his birth is never mentioned, neither is his death ; unlike
the Aaronic priests, with whom a pure family descent was vital,
this priest has no progenitors. Reading the record in the light
of Ps no 4 , and on the Alexandrian principle that the very
silence of scripture is charged with meaning, the writer divines
in Melchizedek a priest who is permanent. This method of
interpretation had been popularized by Philo. In quod det. pot.
48, e.g., he calls attention to the fact that Moses does not explain
in Gn 4 15 what was the mark put by God upon Cain. Why ?
Because the mark was to prevent him from being killed. Now
Moses never mentions the death of Cain Std 7rucrr/s -n)? vofAoOeo-ias,
suggesting that wo-xep rj fj^nvdevfxivq ^KvWa, kolkov aOavajov e'ernv
aeppoo-vvrj. Again (de Ebriet. 14) ei7re ydp 7rov tis " /ecu ydp d\r/c?cos
dSeAcpi; yLOV idTiv e/c 7ra.Tpos, 'aAA' ovk Ik /ar/Tpos " (Gn 20 12 ) —
VII. 3.] MELCHIZEDEK AS PRIEST 93
Abraham's evasive description of Sarah — is most significant ; she
had no mother, i.e. she had no connexion with the material
world of the senses.
'Awdrup and d^raip were applied to (a) waifs, whose parents were un-
known ; or (b) to illegitimate children ; or (c) to people of low origin ; or (d)
to deities who were supposed to have been born, like Athene and Hephaestus,
from only one sex. Lactantius {diuin. instil, i. 7) quotes the Delphic oracle,
which described Apollo as d/xriruip, and insists that such terms refer only to
God {ibid. iv. 13). "As God the Father, the origin and source of things,
is without parentage, he is most accurately called dirdrwp and dpAyrup by
Trismegistus, since he was not begotten by anyone. Hence it was fitting
that the Son also should be twice born, that he too should become dirdrwp
and d/j.r)Tiap." His argument apparently 1 is that the pre-existent Son was
d/uL^jTup and that He became dirdrup by the Virgin-birth (so Theodore of
Mopsuestia). Lactantius proves the priesthood of Christ from Ps no 4 among
other passages, but he ignores the deduction from the Melchizedek of Gn 14 ;
indeed he gives a rival derivation of Jerusalem as if from lepbv XoKo/jlwv.
Theodoret, who {Dial. ii. ) explains that the incarnate Son was dfirjTup, with
respect to his divine nature, and dyeveaXdyr/Tos in fulfilment of Is 53 s , faces
the difficulty of Melchizedek with characteristic frankness. Melchizedek, he
explains, is described as dirdrwp, dp.rjrwp, simply because scripture does not
record his parentage or lineage. Ei d\7]0ios dirdrwp rjv Kai d/j.rjTwp, ovk clv r\v
eiKwv, d\X dXrjdeia. 'Eireidr] Si ov <f>vaei ravf ^x et > dXkd Kara rrjv rrjs deias
rpa<pi)s OLKovo/xlav, SeiKvvaL rrjs dXrjdeias rbv rvirov. In his commentary he
explains that p,ivei lepevs els rb SiriveKis means ri)i> iepwavv-qv ov irapiire/j.\pev eh
iralSas, Kaddirep ' Aapwv /cat 'E\edl~ap Kai •bivee's.
'A4xop.oicop.eVos in v. 3 means " resembling," as, e.g., in Ep.
Jerem™ ve/cpw eppt/xeVw iv <tkot€l d^co/xot'covTai ot #eoi avTwv, though
it might even be taken as a strict passive, "made to resemble"
{i.e. in scripture), the Son of God being understood to be eternal.
Eis to SiT^eKe's is a classical equivalent for cts tov alwva, a phrase
which is always to be understood in the light of its context.
Here it could not be simply "ad vitam "; the foregoing phrases
and the fact that even the levitical priests were appointed for
life, rule out such an interpretation.
The writer now (vv. 4 " 10 ) moralizes upon the statement that
Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek and received his blessing,
which proves the supreme dignity of the Melchizedek priesthood,
and, inferentially, its superiority to the levitical.
4 Now mark the dignity of this man. The patriarch ii Abraham paid"
him "a tenth" of the spoils. 6 Those sons of Levi, who receive the priestly
office, are indeed ordered by law to tithe the people {that is, their brothers),
although the latter are descended from Abrahani ; 6 but he tvho had no
levitical {it, avrwv = iK tCjv vlQv Aevet) genealogy actually tithed Abraham and
' ' blessed " the possessor of the promises ! 7 {And there is no question that it is
the inferior who is blessed by the superior. ) 8 Again, it is tnortal men in the
one case who receive tithes, while in the other it is one of whom the witness is
that "he lives." 9 In fact, we might almost say that even Levi the receiver
of tithes paid tithes through Abraham ; 10 for he was still in the loins of his
father when Melchizedek met him.
1 In iv. 25 he says that ' ' as God was the Father of his spirit without a
mother, so a virgin was the mother of his body without a father."
94 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VII. 4-8.
©ewpeu-e (v. 4 ) is an oratorical imperative as in 4 Mac 14 13
(0£Wp€tT€ Se 7rS)<S TToXvirXoKOS i(TTLV 7] T^S <£><AoT€KJ/iaS (TTOpyi)) J
tttjXikos is a rare word, often used for t^Aikos after vowels, though
not in Zee 2 6 (tov iSciv tttjXikov to 7rAaTos airf/? eariv), where alone
it occurs in the LXX. The ovtos (om. D* 67**. 1739 Blass)
repeats the ovtos of v. 1 . We have now a triple proof of the
inferiority of the levitical priesthood to Melchizedek. (a) Mel-
chizedek, though not in levitical orders, took tithes from and
gave a blessing to Abraham himself (vv. 4 - 7 ); (b) he is never
recorded to have lost his priesthood by death (v. 8 ) ; and (c) in-
deed, in his ancestor Abraham, Levi yet unborn did homage to
Melchizedek ( 9 - 10 ). To. &Kpoduaa (v. 4 ), which this alone of NT
writers has occasion to use, explains the irdvTa of v. 2 ; it is one
of the classical terms for which he went outside the LXX.
'O -iraTpidpx*is is thrown to the end of the sentence for emphasis.
In v. 5 lepareiae is chosen instead of Upmavvqv for the sake of
assonance with Aeoei. The LXX does not distinguish them
sharply. The general statement about tithing, kcito. t6v v6\lov
(the IvToXr) of Nu i8 20 - 21 ), is intended to throw the spontaneous
action of Abraham into relief; d-jrooeKaTouj' of "tithing" persons
occurs in 1 S 8 15f -, but usually means " to pay tithes," like the
more common Sckcitow (v. 6 ), the classical form being Se*aT€iW.
In v. 6 the perfect euXoyrjice is like the Fhilonic perfect (see above).
In describing the incident (de Abrahamo, 40), Philo lays stress
upon the fact that 6 /Aeyas Upevs tov fxeyiarov Oeov offered brtviKia
and feasted the conquerors ; he omits both the blessing and the
offering of tithes, though he soon allegorizes the latter (41).
Moulton calls attention to " the beautiful parallel in Plato's Apol. 28<r,
for the characteristic perfect in Hebrews, describing what stands written in
Scripture," holding that " 6V01 iv Tpolq. TereXevrriKaffi (as is written in the
Athenians' Bible) is exactly like He 7 6 II 17 - 28 ." But these perfects are
simply aoristic (see above, p. 91, note).
V. 7 is a parenthetical comment on what blessing and being
blessed imply ; the neuter (eXarroi') is used, as usual in Greek
(cp. Blass, § 138. 1), in a general statement, especially in
a collective sense, about persons. Then the writer rapidly
summarizes, from vv. 1-4 , the contrast between the levitical
priests who die off and Melchizedek whose record (fxaprvpov/xero^
in scripture, cp. n 5 ) is "he lives" (/o?t€ £wf)s Te'Aos . . . /xe'vei
£ts to 8trjveK€^). Finally (vv. 9 - 10 ), he ventures (o>s cVos tlireiv, a
literary phrase, much affected by Philo) on what he seems to
feel may be regarded as a forced and fanciful remark, that Levi
was committed 8i' 'Aj3padp. (genitive) to a position of respectful
deference towards the prince-priest of Salem. In v. 5 Kcuirep
e\T)\u06Tas ei< tt)s dcr<j>uos 'APpadp. (the Semitic expression for
descendants, chosen here in view of what he was going to say in
VII. 9-11.] THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD 95
v. 10 cc tt] 6<7<{>ui too irciTpos) is another imaginative touch added
in order to signalize the pre-eminent honour of the levitical
priests over their fellow-countrymen. Such is their high authority.
And yet Melchizedek's is higher still !
(a) In v. 6 " iorte legendum, 6 dt /xi] yfveaXoyovnti'os avrbv Sedac&TUJKe tov
'Ajipad/j., ipsum Abrahamam " (Bentley). But ^{ avrQv explains itself, and
the stress which avrdv would convey is already brought out by the emphatic
position of'Appa&fj., and by the comment Kal rbv ix 0VTa KT ^- U') In V - J k^I
is inserted after <5, in conformity with v. 2 , by d A C D c K L P syr hkl arm,
etc. For airoSfKa-rovv in v. 8 the termination (cp. Thackeray, 244) atroSeKa-
rolv is read by B D (as KaraaK-rivoiv in Mt 13 32 ). In v. 6 the more common
(II 20 ) aorist, tv\6yr\<re, is read by A C P 6. 104. 242. 263. 326. 383. 1288.
1739. 2004. 2143, Chrys. for ev\6yr]Ke.
He now (vv. nf -) turns to prove his point further, by glancing
at the text from the 110th psalm. " It is no use to plead that
Melchizedek was succeeded by the imposing Aaronic priest-
hood ; this priesthood belonged to an order of religion which
had to be superseded by the Melchizedek-order of priesthood."
He argues here, as already, from the fact that the psalter is later
than the pentateuch ; the point of 7 11 is exactly that of 4 Tf -.
11 Further, if the levitical priesthood had been the means of reaching per-
fection {for it was on the basis of that priesthood that the Law was enacted for
the Tefple), why was it still necessary for another sort of priest to emerge
" with the rank of Melchizedek,''' instead of simply with the rank of Aaron
{ v "for when the priesthood is changed, a change of lazv necessarily follows) ?
13 He who is thus {i.e. "with the rank of M.") described belongs to another
tribe, no member of which ever devoted himself to the altar ; u for it is evident
that our Lord sprang from Judah, and Moses never mentioned priesthood in
connexion with that tribe. 15 This becomes all the more plain when {et = iirel)
another priest emerges "resembling Melchizedek" 16 one who has become a
pi-iest by the power of an indissoluble {aKaraXuTov, i.e. by death) Life and
not by the Law of an external command ; n for the witness to him is,
" Thou art priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek.''''
18 A previous command is set aside on account of its weakness and uselessness
19 {f or the Law made nothing perfect), and there is introduced a better Hope,
by means of which we can draw near to God.
El \iiv ouV (without any he to follow, as in 8 4 ) reXei'wais
(" perfection " in the sense of a perfectly adequate relation to
God ; see v. 19 ) 81a -rrjs AeueiTiK-qs iepwcru^s ktX. AeveiTiKrjs is a
rare word, found in Philo (de fuga, rj Aeun-i/a) ^ovyf), but never in
the LXX except in the title of Leviticus ; Upwcrvvr] does occur in
the LXX, and is not distinguishable from Uparda (v. 5 ). In the
parenthetical remark 6 Xa6s yap €ir' auTTJs vcvou-oOernTai, au-rijs
was changed into avrrjv (6. 242. 330. 378. 383. 440. 462. 467.
489. 491. 999. 1610. 1836 Theophyl.), or avT-fj (K L 326. 1288,
etc. Chrys.) after 8 6 (where again we have this curious passive),
and eei'ou.o0eTr)Tcu altered into the pluperfect ZvevofxoOeTrjTo
(K L, etc.). The less obvious genitive (cp. Ex. 34 s7 em yap
riov Aoywv tovtwv Te6tip.au croi biadrji<r)v Kal tu> 'Io-paj/A.) eir' auTf]s
96 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VII. 11-13.
is not " in the time of," for the levitical priesthood was not in
existence prior to the Law; it might mean "in connexion with,"
since «ri and ivepi have a similar force with this genitive, but the
incorrect dative correctly explains the genitive. The Mosaic
i'o'ju.os could not be worked for the Aao? without a priesthood, to
deal with the offences incurred. The idea of the writer always
is that a vop.o<; or StadrjKr) depends for its validity and effective-
ness upon the Upcvs or icpets by whom it is administered. Their
personal character and position are the essential thing. Every con-
sideration is subordinated to that of the priesthood. As a change
in that involves a change in the vop.0% (v. 12 ), the meaning of the
parenthesis in v. 11 must be that the priesthood was the basis for the
vojxos, though, no doubt, the writer has put his points in vv. u * 12
somewhat intricately ; this parenthetical remark would have been
better placed after the other in v. 12 , as indeed van d. Sande
Bakhuyzen proposes. Three times over (cp. v. 19 ) he puts in
depreciatory remarks about the Law, the reason being that the
Law and the priesthood went together. It is as if he meant
here : " the levitical priesthood (which, of course, implies the
Law, for the Law rested on the priesthood)." The inference
that the vo/tos is antiquated for Christians reaches the same end
as Paul does by his dialectic, but by a very different route.
'At'iffTaaOai ( = appear on the scene, as v. 15 ) and XeyecrQai refer to
Ps no 4 , which is regarded as marking a new departure, with
far-reaching effects, involving (v. 12 ) an alteration of the cojios as
well as of the Upwo-uVir]. In ical ou . . . Xeyeo-Oai the ov negatives
the infinitive as p.rj usually does; 'Aapwy, like Kava (Jn 21 2 ), has
become indeclinable, though Josephus still employs the ordinary
genitive 'Aapwvos. In v. 12 p-ei-aSto-is, which is not a LXX term,
though it occurs in 2 Mac n 24 , is practically equivalent here
(cp. 12 27 ) to &0eTT)cns in v. 18 . A close parallel occurs in de
Mundo, 6, rd/xos piv yap rjplv ictokAivt)? 6 #£os, oi;Se/i.iav eViSc^o-
/xei'os 8t.6p0w(Tiv rj /xtTa^ecriv, and a similar phrase is employed by
Josephus to describe the arbitrary transference of the highpriest-
hood (Ant. xii. 9. 7, vrro Avctlov TretaOels, p.€Tadtivai ttjv Tip.7jv dVo
TavT7)<; tt}s 01/aas ets erepov).
We now (vv. lsf -) get an account of what was meant by ou
Kcrrd tt]c Ta|ie 'Aapwi' or erepos ("another," in the sense of "a
different ") Upetis in v. 11 ; Jesus, this Upevs /card -nye t<x$ lv MeX^io-e-
Se'/c, came from the non-sacerdotal tribe of Judah, not from that
of Levi. 5 E<J>' ov is another instance of the extension of this
metaphorical use of liri from the Attic dative to the accusative.
The perfect u.eTeVx'nKci' may be used in an aoristic sense, like
'la-^qKO; or simply for the sake of assonance with irpocria^-qK^v,
and it means no more than fAeTeax ev m 2l4 > indeed /x£Te'o-x«v is
read here by P 489. 623*. 191 2 arm, as -n-poaiaxev is (by A C
VII. 14-17.] THE SUPERIOR PRIESTHOOD 97
33. 1288) for Trpoo-£<Txy K€V - The conjecture of Erasmus, irpoo-io--
rrjxev, is ingenious, but irpoaex eLV m ^ e sense of " attend " is
quite classical. The rule referred to in els f\v 4>u\rje (i$ 17s (pvXfjs,
arm?), i.e. €* </>uA.t?s €is fy (as Lk io 10 ) ktA. is noted in Josephus,
Ant. XX. 10. I, Trdrpiov Icttl firjSeva tov Oeov rrjv dp)(iepiao-vvqv
Xafxfiavtiv rj tov i$ ai/Aaros tov 'Aapwvos. No tribe except Levi
supplied priests. (npoorjW in v. 14 is not a LXX term, but
occurs in this sense in 2 Mac 3 17 (oY wv 7rp68r)\ov iyivero) and
14 39 , as well as in Judith 8 29 .) In Test. Levi 8 14 it is predicted
(cp. Introd. p. xlvili) that /JacriAev? Ik tov 'Iov8a dvao-T^aerai /cat
TToirjo-ei lepaTCLdv viav : but this is a purely verbal parallel, the
fiao-iXevs is Hyrcanus and the reference is to the Maccabean
priest-kings who succeed the Aaronic priesthood. 'AvareWeiv is
a synonym for dvio-Tao-Qai (v. 16 ), as in Nu 24 17 , though it is just
possible that dvaTeVaX/cev is a subtle allusion to the messianic
title of 'AvaroXr} in Zee 6 12 ; in commenting on that verse Philo
observes (de cotifus. ling. 14) : tovtov p.lv yap Trpeo-fivTaTov vlbv 6
tcov oXiov dveVeiAe iraT-qp. (For Upiwv the abstract equivalent
iepoxrvvqs, from v. 12 , is substituted by D c K L.) The title
6 Ku'pios TjfAwy is one of the links between the vocabulary of this
epistle and that of the pastorals (1 Ti i 14 , 2 Ti i 8 ). As the
result of all this, what is it that becomes (v. 15 ) •n-epicrcroTepoi'
(for Trepio-croTcpws) KaTdSirjW ? 1 The provisional character of the
levitical priesthood, or the /xerdOeo-Ls vdfxov? Probably the
latter, though the writer would not have distinguished the one
from the other. In v. 15 tccn-d ttjv 6p.oioTT}Ta linguistically has the
same sense as dc/>co/Aoiw/x.€vos (v. 3 ). In v. 16 aapiarqs (for which
0-apKLKrj'i is substituted by C c D K * 104. 326. 11 75, etc.) hints at
the contrast which is to be worked out later (in 9 1 " 14 ) between
the external and the inward or spiritual, the sacerdotal ivrok-q
being dismissed as merely o-apKtvrj, since it laid down physical
descent as a requisite for office. Hereditary succession is
opposed to the inherent personality of the Son ( = 9 14 ). The dis-
tinction between o-apKiKo? ( = fleshly, with the nature and qualities
of o-dpi;) and o-dp/avos (fleshy, composed of <rdp£) is blurred in
Hellenistic Greek of the period, where adjectives in -ivos tend to
take over the sense of those in -ikos, and vice versa. In v. 17
jiap-rupeuTCH (cp. yuaprupou/xevos, v. 8 ) is altered to the active (io 15 )
fxaprvpei by C D K L 256. 326. 436. 1175. 1837. 2127 syr hU vg
arm Cbrys.
The |x6Td0ecris of v. 12 is now explained negatively (d0€TT]<ns)
and positively (eimo-aY^Y 1 !) in vv. 18 - 19 . 'AGe'rrjcris (one of his juristic
metaphors, cp. Q 26 ) ylverai (i.e. by the promulgation of Ps no 4 )
TrpoayouCTT)? (cp. IMA. hi. 247, rd irpodyovTa i^ai/ucr/AaTa : irpodytiv is
1 KardciijXov is the classical intensive form of 8ij\ov, used here for the sake
of assonance with the following Kara.
7
98 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VII. 17-19-
not used by the LXX in this sense of " fore-going ") erroXfjs (v. 16 )
Bid to auTTJs (unemphatic) do-Ge^es Kal d^cj^eXe's (alliteration).
'Ai/w<}>eX^s is a word common in such connexions, e.g. Ep. Arist.
253, oirep avaxpeXh koL dAyeivov ioriv ', Polyb. xii. 25 s atpqXov ko.1
di/ax^eAe'i. The uselessness of the Law lay in its failure to secure
an adequate forgiveness of sins, without which a real access or
fellowship (iyyi^iv tu 8cw) was impossible ; ouoey eTeXeiwo-ef, it led
to no absolute order of communion between men and God, no
TeXciwo-is. The positive contrast (v. 19 ) is introduced by the strik-
ing compound e-jreio-aywyT) (with yiWrai), a term used by Josephus
for the replacing of Vashti by Esther (Ant. xi. 6. 2, o-/?eWuo-0cu ydp
to 7r/3os rrjv TrpoTTjpav <pi\6(TTopyov €Te'pas eVeio-aywy^, *ai to 7rpos €K€i-
vrjv evvovv d7roo"7rw/i.evov Kara p.u<pbv ytyveo-dai ti}s o~vvovo-q<i) ; there
is no force here in the «r«, as if it meant " fresh " or " further."
The new cXms is Kpei-nw by its effectiveness (6 18 ) ; it accomplishes
what the y6p.os and its Upwo-vvrj had failed to realize for men, viz.
a direct and lasting access to God. In what follows the writer
ceases to use the term cAm's, and concentrates upon the eyyi^eu'
tw 8ew, since the essence of the eX-m's lies in the priesthood and
sacrifice of Jesus the Son. With this allusion to the KpdrTUiv IXtris,
he really resumes the thought of 6 18 - 19 ; but he has another
word to say upon the superiority of the Melchizedek priest, and
in this connexion he recalls another oath of God, viz. at the
inauguration or consecration mentioned in Ps no 4 , a solemn
divine oath, which was absent from the ritual of the levitical
priesthood, and which ratifies the new priesthood of Jesus as
permanent (vv. 20 * 22 ), enabling him to do for men what the levitical
priests one after another failed to accomplish (vv. 23 " 25 ).
20 A better Hope, because it was not promised apart fro?ti an oath. Previous
priests (01 ixiv — levitical priests) became priests apart from any oath, 21 but
he has an oath from Him who said to him,
" The Lord has sworn, and he will not change his mind,
thou art a priest for ever."
22 And this makes Jesus surety for a superior covenant. 23 Also, while they (ol
/xif) became priests in large numbers, since death prevents them from continuing
to serve, 24 he holds his priesthood without any successor, since he continues for
ever. ^ Hence for all time he is able to save those who approach God through
him, as he is always living to intercede on their behalf
The long sentence (vv. 20 " 22 ) closes with 'Itjo-ous in an emphatic
position. After Kal ko.0' 00-oy ou x w P l 5 opKw/jioo-ias, which connect
\sc. tovto yiverai) with e7T£to-aywy^ KpetTTovos IXmooSj there is a long
explanatory parenthesis oi uey yap . . . cis to^ <uwm, exactly in
the literary style of Philo (e.g. quis rer. div. 17, Z<p' 00-ov yap ol/xai
ktX. — vovs ifkv yap . . . alo-Qrjo-LS — eVt toctovtov ktX.). In v. 20
6pK«|Aocr£a (oath-taking) is a neuter plural (cp. Syll. 593 29 , OGIS.
229 s2 ) which, like avTu/xoo-La, has become a feminine singular of
the first declension, and elcnv ycyo^Tes is simply an analytic form
VII. 20-22.] THE SUPERIOR PRIESTHOOD 99
of the perfect tense, adopted as more sonorous than ycyovacri. As
we have already seen (on 6 13 ), Philo (de sacrific. 28-29) discusses
such references to God swearing. Thousands of people, he ob-
serves, regard an oath as inconsistent with the character of God, who
requires no witness to his character. " Men who are disbelieved
have recourse to an oath in order to win credence, but God's mere
word must be believed (6 Se 616% ko\ Xeymv 7tio-tos ecrnv) ; hence,
his words are in no sense different from oaths, as far as assurance
goes." He concludes that the idea of God swearing an oath is
simply an anthropomorphism which is necessary on account of
human weakness. Our author takes the OT language in Ps no 4
more naively, detecting a profound significance in the line wfAoo-ey
Kupios Kal ou |AeTa/A€\T]8rj<reT(H (in the Hellenistic sense of " regret "
= change his mind). The allusion is, of course, to the levitical
priests. But Roman readers could understand from their former
religion how oaths were needful in such a matter. Claudius,
says Suetonius {Vit. Claud. 22), "in co-optandis per collegia
sacerdotibus neminem nisi juratus {i.e. that they were suitable)
nominavit."
The superfluous addition of koto ttjv Ta|iv McXx^eSe'tc was soon made,
after «ls tov aliva, by x° A D K L P vt SyrP esh hkl boh eth Eus (Dem. iv.
15. 40), etc.
napapeVeic means to remain in office or serve (a common
euphemism in the papyri). The priestly office could last in a
family (cp. Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 2, -n}? UparLK^s Tiyu^s p.eyio-r-^% ouo-qs xal
ev ra yeVei Trapa/Atv Wcrr/s), but mortal men (aTrodvyaKovres, V. 8 ) COuid
not Trapa/AeYeiv as priests, whereas (v. 24 ) Jesus remains a perpetual
lepeu's, Si&to peVeiv ( = irdvTore £w»',v. 25 )auT6i'(superfluous as in Lk 2 4
Sta to avTov elvai). 'AirapdpaToi', a legal adjective for " inviolable,"
is here used in the uncommon sense of non-transferable (boh
Chrys. ovk e^ci SidSoxov, Oecumenius, etc. dStdSoxov), as an equiva-
lent for /xrj TrapafiaLvovo-av et? aXAov, and contrasts Jesus with the
long succession of the levitical priests (irXeiovts). The passive
sense of "not to be infringed" (cp. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 43,
(.lp.app.ivr}v <fcap.ev a.irapa.fia.Tov Tavrrjv etvai, where the adjective
= ineluctabile) or " unbroken " does not suit the context, for
Jesus had no rivals and the word can hardly refer to the invasion
of death. Like yeyu\L\>atrp.4va in 5 14 , also after cxeic, it has a pre-
dicative force, marked by the absence of the article. Philo {quis
rer. div. heres, 6) finds a similar significance in the etymology of
Kupios as a divine title : /cvpios p.\v yap -n-apa to Kvpos, o Br] (3ej3at6v
ecrriv, eiprjTdi, kolt ivavriOTrp-a d/3e/3aiou teal aKvpov. But our author
does not discover any basis for the perpetuity of 6 kv'/dios rjp.Civ in
the etymology of xvpios, and is content (in vv. 22-24 ) to stress the
line of the psalm, in order to prove that Jesus guaranteed a superior
^laO-qK-q (i.e. order of religious fellowship). "Ey-po? is one of the
IOO THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VII. 22-25.
juristic terms (vg, sponsor) which he uses in a general sense ; here
it is "surety " or "pledge." AiaOr/KT) is discussed by him later
on ; it is a term put in here as often to excite interest and anticipa-
tion. How readily Iyyuos could be associated with a term like
vwleiv (v. 25 ) may be understood from Sir 2Q 15t :
X<a.piTa<; iyyvov p.r) iiriXdOr),
ZSuiKtv yap tt)v ij/v)^rjv clvtov {nrep crov.
ayada. iyyvov avarpeif/ei ap.apTw\6s,
/cat a^dpuxTOS iv Siavoia. ey/caTaAeu/'et pucrd/xcvov.
Our author might have written /tccnV^s here as well as in 8 8 ; he
prefers lyyuos probably for the sake of assonance with yiyovev or
even iyyi£op.ev. As fxeo-LTeveiv means to vouch for the truth of a
promise or statement (cp. 6 17 ), so lyyuos means one who vouches
for the fulfilment of a promise, and therefore is a synonym for
/a€o-itt;s here. The conclusion (v. 25 ) is put in simple and
effective language. Els t6 irarreXc's is to be taken in the temporal
sense of the phrase, as in BM. iii. 161 11 (a.d. 212) diro tov
vvv ci? to 7ravreAe's, being simply a literary variant for irdvTOTe.
The alternative rendering " utterly " suits Lk 13 11 better than this
passage. This full and final Upwowrj of Jesus is the KpeiTTwe eXiris
(v. 19 ), the TeAaWis which the levitical priesthood failed to supply,
a perfect access to God's Presence. His intercession (ivrvyxdvew,
sc. #e<j) as in Ro 8 34 os koX IvTvy-^avu virep vp.wv) has red blood in
it, unlike Philo's conception, e.g. in Vit. Mos. iii. 14, dvayKalov yap
rjv tov lepu>p.evov (the highpriest) t<j tov koct/aou Trarpl TrapaKXrjTu)
XP?l0~6ai TfActoTaTO) tt/v dpe-ri]v vlw (i.e. the Logos) 7rpo9 re dpvrjo-Ttav
ap.apt]p,dTOiv «al ^op-qyiav cufaOovuTaTtov dyaOiov, and in quis rer. dw.
42, where the Logos is i/ceTTjs tov OvqTov KrjpaivovTos del 7rpos to
d(f>9apTov Trapd 8c tco </>vvti 7rp6s eveXiricrTLav tov p.-qiroT€ tov iXeco deov
■n-epuBuv to tSiov Ipyov. The function of intercession in heaven for
the People, which originally (see p. 37) was the prerogative of
Michael the angelic guardian of Israel, or generally of angels (see
on i 14 ), is thus transferred to Jesus, to One who is no mere angel
but who has sacrificed himself for the People. The author
deliberately excludes any other mediator or semi-mediator in the
heavenly sphere (see p. xxxix).
A triumphant little summary (vv. 26-28 ) now rounds off the
argument of 6 19f *~7 25 :
26 Such was the highpriest for us, saintly, innocent, unstained, far from
all contact with the sinful, lifted high above the heavens, '•" one who has no
need, like yonder highpriests, day by day to offer sacrifices first for their own
sins and t lien for (the preposition is omitted as in Ac 26 18 ) those of the People —
he did that once for all in offering up himself 28 For the Law appoints
human beings in their weakness to the priesthood ; but the word of the Oath
(which came after the Law) appoints a Son who is made perfect for ever.
VII. 26.] JESUS AS PRIEST IOI
The text of this paragraph has only a few variants, none of any import-
ance. After -f|[iiv in v. 26 ko.1 is added by A B D 1739 syrP esh hkl Eusebius
("was exactly the one for us "). In v. 27 it makes no difference to the sense
whether irpocrevtyKas (k A \V 33. 256 436. 442. 1837. 2004. 2127 arm Cyr.)
or dvcve'-yicas (B C D K L P etc. Chrys. ) is read ; the latter may have been
suggested by dva^e'peiv, or irpoeevtynas may have appealed to later scribes as
the more usual and technical term in the epistle. The technical distinction
between dva<|>epeiv (action of people) and irpo<r<ptpet.v (action of the priest)
had long been blurred ; both verbs mean what we mean by " offer up " or
" sacrifice." In v. 28 the original lepeh (D* 1 r vg) was soon changed (to con-
form with dpxiepeis in v.- 7 ) into apxiepets. The reason why UpeOs and
lepels have been used in 7 lfc is that Melchizedek was called iep€vs, not
dpxtepevs. Once the category is levitical, the interchange of apxiept v$ and
lepevs becomes natural.
The words toioutos y^p ^f"" eirpentv (another daring use of
eirperrtv, cp. 2 10 ) dpxiepeu's (v. 26 ) might be bracketed as one of
the author's parentheses, in which case ocrios ktX. would carry on
irde-roTe £wv . . . auiw. But os in Greek often follows toioutos,
and the usual construction is quite satisfactory, rdp is intensive,
as often. It is generally misleading to parse a rhapsody, but there
is a certain sequence of thought in oo-io? ktX., where the positive
adjective ocrios is followed by two negative terms in alliteration
(aitaKOS, djaiai/TOs), and Kcxwpiop-eVos oltto tG>v &u.apTU)\aik is further
defined by u<J/r)\6Tepos twv oupacoii' yeyofievos (the same idea as in
4 14 SitXrjivOoTa rovs oupavovs). He is oo-ios, pious or saintly
(cp. ERE. vi. 743), in virtue of qualities like his reverence,
obedience, faith, loyalty, and humility, already rioted. "Akcikos
is innocent (as in Job 8 20 , Jer n 19 ), one of the LXX equivalents
for Dn or D^om, not simply = devoid of evil feeling towards men;
T * T
like dfjuavros, it denotes a character x w P^ dpaprta^. 'Afiieu'Tos is
used of the untainted Isis in OR. 1380 (ev II6Vtu> d/AiWros).
The language may be intended to suggest a contrast between
the deep ethical purity of Jtsus and the ritual purity of the
levitical highpriest, who had to take extreme precautions against
outward defilement (cp. Lv 2i 10 ^ 5 for the regulations, and the
details in Josephus, Ant. iii. 12. 2, p.rj fiovov Se 7T€pi. Tas lepovpyias
KaOapovs cTvai, o-irov$d£,eiv 81 kou irept tt?v auTW oYarrai', ws avrrjv
ap,epirTov eivaC kcu Sid ravrrjv TrjV aiTiav, 01 t^v UpaTLKr]v aToXrjv
CpOpOWT£S ap.Wp.Ol T€ £10-1 KCIX 7T€pi TTO.VTO. KO.Qa.pOl KOU VT/CpdXlOl), and
had to avoid human contact for seven days before the ceremony
of atonement-day. The next two phrases go together. Kexwpio - -
ficVos d-n-o Twf dfiapTGAwe is intelligible in the light of g 2S ; Jesus
has d7ra£ sacrificed himself for the sins of men, and in that sense
his connexion with dpapruiXoi is done. He is no levitical high-
priest who is in daily contact with them, and therefore obliged
to sacrifice repeatedly. Hence the writer at once adds (v. 27 ) a
word to explain and expand this pregnant thought ; the sphere
in which Jesus now lives (u\j/T]\6Tepos ktX.) is not one in which,
102 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VII. 27-28.
as on earth, he had to suffer the contagion or the hostility of
dfiapTwXoi (12 2 ) and to die for human sins.
" He has outsoared the shadow of our night ;
Envy and calumny and hate and pain . . .
Can touch him not and torture not again ;
From the contagion of the world's slow stain
He is secure."
This is vital x to the sympathy and intercession of Jesus ; it is
in virtue of this position before God that he aids his people,
as TCTeXeiwfjiecos, and therefore able to do all for them. His
priesthood is, in modern phrase, absolute. As eternal dpxiepeu's
in the supreme sense, and as no longer in daily contact with
sinners, Jesus is far above the routine ministry of the levitical
dpxiepeis. The writer blends loosely in his description (v. 27 ) the
annual sacrifice of the highpriest on atonement-day (to which
he has already referred in 5 3 ) and the daily sacrifices offered by
priests. Strictly speaking the apxiepeis did not require to offer
sacrifices Kaff rj/xipav, and the accurate phrase would have been kclt'
iviavrov. According to Lv 6 19 * 23 the highpriest had indeed to offer
a cereal offering morning and evening ; but the text is uncertain,
for it is to be offered both on the day of his consecration and
also Sid iravTos. Besides, this section was not in the LXX text
of A, so that the writer of Hebrews did not know of it. Neither
had he any knowledge of the later Jewish ritual, according to
which the highpriest did offer this offering twice a day.
Possibly, however, his expression here was suggested by Philo's
statement about this offering, viz. that the highpriest did offer a
daily sacrifice {guts rer. div. 36 : ras eVSeXe^cts Ovcrtas . . . rp t«
wrep eauTwv ol Upels 7rpoa<p4pov(Ti ttjs o-e/AiSdAcw? koll rrjv virep tov
edvovs Tuiv Bvelv a/jLvuiv, de spec. leg. iii. 23, 6 dp^ie/Dcus . . . e.vya.%
Se kcu Ovo-ias tcAwv Ka#' e/cdoT^v rj/xipav). It is true that this
offering uire'p eainw was not a sin-offering, only an offering of
cereals ; still it was reckoned a Ovcrta, and in Sir 45 14 it is counted
as such. Touto yap iirol^aev refers then to his sacrifice for sins
(q 28 ), not, of course, including any sins of his own (see on 5 3 ) ;
it means u-n-ep rac dfiapTiwe too XaoC, and the writer could afford
to be technically inexact in his parallelism without fear of being
misunderstood. "Jesus offered his sacrifice," "Jesus did all
that a highpriest has to do," — this was what he intended. The
Greek fathers rightly referred touto to cireira tuc too Aaou, as if
the writer meant " this, not that irpoTepoe." It is doubtful if he
had such a sharp distinction in his mind, but when he wrote touto
1 Thus Philo quotes (de Fug. 12) with enthusiasm what Plato says in the
Theatetus : oVt atroktaQai tA KaKa ciiardf — virevavriov yap ti rip ayady del
tli>u.i dvajKi] — oCre 4v tieiois avrd idpvaOai.
VII. 28.] THE SACRIFICE OF JESUS IO3
he was thinking of ruv toG XaoO, and of that alone. An effort
is sometimes made to evade this interpretation by confining
kciG' f\nepav to 6s ook ?x€i and understanding " yearly " after
01 dpxiepels, as if the idea were that Christ's daily intercession
required no daily sacrifice like the annual sacrifice on atonement-
day. But, as the text stands, dvdyKi]v is knit to ko.6' rjp.epav, and
these words must all be taken along with <2<nrep ol dpxiepels
(€ X ovo-i).
Compare the common assurance of the votaries of Serapis, e.g. BGU.
ii. 385 (ii/iii A.D. ), rb irpoiTKVvtjfj.d aov iroiQ (car e/caaTTjj' i]/j.ipav irapa r£ Kvpi(p
'SapaTTiSi kclI rofc avvvtoLS deols.
A deep impression is made by the words iainbv d^^yKas,
"pro nobis tibi uictor et uictima, et ideo uictor, quia uictima,
pro nobis tibi sacerdos et sacrificium, et ideo sacerdos, quia
sacrificium" (Aug. Con/, x. 43). What is meant by this the
writer holds over till he reaches the question of the sacrifice of
Jesus as dpxiepeu's (9 lf -)- As usual, he prepares the way for a
further idea by dropping an enigmatic allusion to it. Meantime
(v. 28 ) a general statement sums up the argument. KaQio-rqaiv is
used as in I Mac IO 20 {KaOe.GTaKap.iv <re arjfxepov dp^iepea tov
IOvovs aov), and daOivnav recalls 5 2 (7reptK£iTai daueveiav), in the
special sense that such weakness involved a sacrifice for one's
personal sins (lorep twv 1S1W d/xapriwv). Whereas Jesus the Son
of God (as opposed to dvapw-n-ovs do-Bevels) was appointed by a
divine order which superseded the Law (fxtra tov vop.ov = vv. 11-19 ),
and appointed as one who was TeTeXeiwpeVos (in the sense of 2 10 )
els tov cuwra. It is implied that he was appointed dpxiepeu's,
between which and Upevs there is no difference.
The writer now picks up the thought (7 22 ) of the superior
8ta0r|KTi which Jesus as dpxiepeus in the eternal ctkt]^ or
sanctuary mediates for the People. This forms the transition
between the discussion of the priesthood (5-8) and the sacrifice
of Jesus (c^-io 17 ). The absolute sacrifice offered by Jesus as
the absolute priest (vv. 1 - 6 ) ratifies the new ha6r]Kiq which has
superseded the old (vv. 7 " 13 ) with its imperfect sacrifices.
1 The point of all this is, we do have such a highpriest, one who is '■'■seated
at the right hand" of the throne of Majesty (see I 3 ) in the heavens,
2 and who officiates in the sanctuary or "true tabernacle set up by the Lord''
and not by man. 3 Now, as every highpriest is appointed to offer gifts and
sacrifices, he too must have something to offer. 4 Were he on earth, he
would not be a priest at all, for there are priests already to offer the gifts
prescribed by Law ( 5 men who serve a mere outline and shadow of the
heavenly — as Moses was instructed when he was about to execute the building
of the tabernacle: "see," God said, "that (sc. Sirm) you make everything
on the pattern shown you upon the mountain " ). 6 As it is, hoivever, the
divine service he has obtained is superior, owing to the fact that he mediates
a sjperior covenant, enacted with superior promises.
The terseness of the clause tjv eirr^ev 6 Kiipios, oxik avSpomos (v. 1 ) is
104 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VIII. 1, 2.
spoiled by the insertion of koi before ovk (A K L P vg boh syr arm eth
Cosm.). In v. 4 ovv becomes ydp in D c K L syr hkl arm Chrys. Theod. , and
a similar group of authorities add Upiwv after 6vtwv. T<5v is prefixed
needlessly to vdfxov by R c D K L P Chrys. Dam. to conform to the usage in
7 5 9 22 ; but the sense is really unaffected, for the only legal regulation con-
ceivable is that of the Law. In v. 6 vvv and vvvi (9 26 ) are both attested ;
the former is more common in the papyri. The Hellenistic (from Aristotle
onwards) form rtrevxev (n° B D c 5. 226. 467. 623. 920. 927. 1311. 1827. 1836.
1873. 2004. 2143, etc. : or rirvxev, s° A D* K L) has been corrected in Pt
6. 33. 1908 Orig. to the Attic TeTvxt Kev - Before KpeiTTovds, icaC is omitted
by D* 69. 436. 462 arm Thdt.
Ke<J)d\aioc ("the pith," Coverdale), which is nominative
absolute, is used as in Cic. ad Attic, v. 18: "et multa, immo
omnia, quorum Ke<pdAaiov," etc., Dem. xiii. 36 : eo-n 6", <L dvSpes
AOrjvaioi, K€<paA.aiov dirdvTtav twv elprjfiii'tav (at the close of a
speech) ; Musonius (ed. Hense, 67 f.) fiiov kou yeveVews WoW
Kotvwviav K€<f)d\aLov civat yd/xov, etc. The word in this sense is
common throughout literature and the more colloquial papyri,
here with em tois XeyopeVois (concerning what has been said).
In passing from the intricate argument about the Melchizedek
priesthood, which is now dropped, the writer disentangles the
salient and central truth of the discussion, in order to continue
his exposition of Jesus as highpriest. " Such, I have said, was the
dpx te P € "S f° r us < an d such is the dpxiepeu's we have — One who is
enthroned, iv tois oupayois, next to God himself." While Philo
spiritualizes the highpriesthood, not unlike Paul (Ro i2 lf -), by
arguing that devotion to God is the real highpriesthood (to ydp
6epa.TrevTiKov ye'vos dvddrjfjid icrri Oeov, lepwp.evov tijv p.eyd\rjv
dpxiepuo-vvrjv aira povco, de Fug. 7), our author sees its essential
functions transcended by Jesus in the spiritual order.
The phrase in v. 2 t&v dyiuc XeiToupyos, offers two points of
interest. First, the linguistic form Aen-ovpyo's. The ci form
stands between the older r] or 171, which waned apparently from
the third cent, b.c, and the later 1 form ; " Acn-ovpyo's sim. socios
habet omnium temporum papyros praeter perpaucas recentiores
quae sacris fere cum libris conspirantes An-ovpyos Xirovpyia
scribunt" (Cronert, Me?noria Graeca Hercul. 39). Then, the
meaning of tw dytW. Philo has the phrase, in Leg. Alleg. iii. 46,
toiovtos Se 6 0epaTT€VT7]<; Kai AtiTOupyos twv dyt'wv, where tcov dytwv
means "sacred things," as in de Fug. 17, where the Levites are
described as priests oh r] tw dytW dvaKerrai Xtirovpyia. This
might be the meaning here. But the writer uses rd dyia else-
where (9 8f - io 19 13 11 ) of "the sanctuary," a rendering favoured
by the context. By Ta ayia he means, as often in the LXX, the
sanctuary in general, without any reference to the distinction
(cp. 9 2f ) between the outer and the inner shrine. The LXX
avoids the pagan term tepoV in this connexion, though to dyiov
itself was already in use among ethnic writers (e.g. the edict of
VIII. 2-5.] THE SACRIFICE OF JESUS 105
Ptolemy in., kou KadiSpvaai iv rS>v dyiwi — " in sacrario templi,"
Dittenberger, OGIS. 56 59 ). It is here denned (kcli epexegetic) as
the true or real oKr\vr\, r\v x e-mqiev 6 Kupios (a reminiscence of Nu
24 s (TKrjval a? iTrrj$€V Kvpios, and of Ex 33 7 kol Xafiibv Mmdj^s r>yv
aKijvrjv airov €irr]$ev). The reality and authenticity of the writer's
faith come out in a term like dXTjGn'os. What he means by it
he will explain in a moment (v. 6 ). Meanwhile he turns to the
Xeiroupyia of Jesus in this ideal sanctuary. This dpxtepeus of
ours, in his vocation (v. 8 , cp. 5 1 ), must have (dvayKalov, sc. IqtIv)
some sacrifice to present before God, though what this offering is,
the writer does not definitely say, even later in g 2i . The analogy
of a highpriest carrying the blood of an animal inside the sacred
shrine had its obvious limitations, for Jesus was both apx<-epev$
and offering, by his self-sacrifice. npoo-eyeyKr) is the Hellenistic
aorist subjunctive, where classical Greek would have employed
a future indicative (Radermacher, 138). The writer proceeds
to argue that this Xen-oupyia is far superior to the levitical cultus
(vv. 4f ). Even in the heavenly sanctuary there must be sacrifice
of some kind — for sacrifice is essential to communion, in his
view. It is not a sacrifice according to the levitical ritual ;
indeed Jesus on this level would not be in levitical orders at all.
But so far from that being any drawback or disqualification to
our dpxiepeu's, it is a proof of his superiority, for the bible itself
indicates that the levitical cultus is only an inferior copy of the
heavenly order to which Jesus belongs.
Instead of contrasting at this point (v. 4 ) t& Swpa (sacrifices,
as in 11 4 ) of the levitical priests with the spiritual sacrifice of
Jesus, he hints that the mere fact of these sacrifices being made
em yfjs is a proof of their inferiority. This is put into a paren-
thesis (v. 5 ) ; but, though a grammatical aside, it contains one of
the writer's fundamental ideas about religion (Eusebius, in Praep.
Evang. xii. 19, after quoting He 8 5 , refers to the similar Platonic
view in the sixth book of the Republic). Such priests (otnves,
the simple relative as in g 2 io 8, n 12 5 ) XaTpeuouo-i (with dative as
in 13 10 ) uTToSeiyp-ciTi icdi ctkiS tSv eTroupcuawi' (cp. 9 23 ). 'YTroSety/xa
here as in g 23 is a mere outline or copy (the only analogous
instance in the LXX being Ezk 42 15 to iwoo'eiy/ia tov oIkov) ; the
phrase is practically a hendiadys for " a shadowy outline," a
second-hand, inferior reproduction. The proof of this is given
in a reference to Ex 25 40 : KaOus Rexp^d-norai Mwuo"f}s —
Xp-qp-aTi^ui 2 as often in the LXX and the papyri, of divine
1 i]v is not assimilated, though ijs might have been written ; the practice
varied (cp. e.g. Dt 5 31 iv rrj 777 f/v 4yw 5ldu>/M, and 12 1 iv rrj yy 17 Kvptos
dldwcriv).
2 Passively in the NT in Ac io 22 , but the exact parallel is in Josephus,
Ant. iii. 8. 8, Muvaijs . . . eis ttjv <ski]vi\v el<riwv ixpf]l x ' XT ^ €T0 we P L & v iSetra
irapa. tov deov.
I06 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VIII. 5.
revelations as well as of royal instructions — plKkw iirneXelv ttjw
aKr\vy\v. The subject of the $770-1 is God, understood from
K€xpT]fA(£TiaT(u, and the yap 1 introduces the quotation, in which
the writer, following Philo (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33), as probably codex
Ambrosianus (F) of the LXX followed him, adds iravra. He
also substitutes SeixOeVTo. for ScSety/xeVov, which Philo keeps
(Kara to TrapdSeiyixa to SeSeiy/aevov croi iv tw opet irdvTa Troirfo-eis), and
retains the LXX tottoi' (like Stephen in Ac 7 44 ). The idea was
current in Alexandrian Judaism, under the influence of Platonism,
that this vKr\vr) on earth had been but a reproduction of the
pre-existent heavenly sanctuary. Thus the author of Wisdom
makes Solomon remind God that he had been told to build the
temple (vdov . . . /cat Ovaiao-Trjpiov) as piprpi.a o-Kf\vr\% dyias 77V
7rpo?iToi/xacra5 ctar' apxys (y 8 )j where crKrjvr] dyia is plainly the
heavenly sanctuary as the eternal archetype. This idealism
determines the thought of our writer (see Introd. pp. xxxif.).
Above the shows and shadows of material things he sees the
real order of being, and it is most real to him on account of
Jesus being there, for the entire relationship between God and
man depends upon this function and vocation of Jesus in the
eternal sanctuary.
Such ideas were not unknown in other circles. Seneca (Ep. lviii. 18 - 19)
had just explained to Lucilius that the Platonic ideas were "what all visible
things were created from, and what formed the pattern for all things,"
quoting the Parmenides, 132 D, to prove that the Platonic idea was the ever-
lasting pattern of all things in nature. The metaphor is more than once used
by Cicero, e.g. Tusc. iii. 2. 3, and in de Officiis, iii. 17, where he writes : " We
have no real and life-like (solidam et expressam effigiem) likeness of real law
and genuine justice ; all we enjoy is shadow and sketch (umbra et imaginibus).
Would that we were true even to these ! For they are taken from the
excellent patterns provided by nature and truth" But our author's thought
is deeper. In the contemporary Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch the idea of
Ex 25 40 is developed into the thought that the heavenly Jerusalem was also
revealed to Moses along with the patterns of the crKrjvrj and its utensils (4 4f- ) ;
God also showed Moses "the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern
of which the sanctuary of the present time was to be made" (Charles' tr. ).
The origin of this notion is very ancient ; it goes back to Sumerian sources,
for Gudea the prince-priest of Lagash (c. 3000 B.C.) receives in a vision the
plan of the temple which he is commanded to build (cp. A. Jeremias,
Babylonisches im NT, pp. 62 f. ). It is to this fundamental conception that
the author of IIpos 'EjlpaLovs recurs, only to elaborate it in an altogether new
form, which went far beyond Philo Philo's argument (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33),
on this very verse of Exodus, is that Bezaleel only constructed an imitation
(fj.ifjLrj)xaTa) of to. apx^Tvira given to Moses ; the latter was called up to the
mountain to receive the direct idea of God, whereas the former worked
simply dvb <tki6ls tQv yevo/xivuv. In de Plant. 6 he observes that the very
name of Bezaleel (Sx "75(3) means "one who works in shadows" (iv cnacus
ttoiwv) ; in De Somniis, i. 35, he defines it as " in the shadow of God," and
again contrasts Bezaleel with Moses : 6 fj.£v olaffKias vireypacptro, 6 8' ou omas,
1 Put before <f>ycri, because the point is not that the oracle was given, but
what the oracle contained.
VIII. 6.] THE SUPERIOR COVENANT IO?
avras 5k r&$ dpx 6 ™ 71 " 01 ' 5 (8r)/xiovpyei (piaeis. In Vit. Mos. iii. 3 he argues that
in building the o-kijvt) Moses designed to produce Kadairep air' apxeruwov
ypa(pi]S Kal vo^tGjv irapaday/idTuiv alaB-qra ixLp.-qp.aTa ... 6 fxiv o$v rinros
toO irapa5ely/.i.aTos ive<r<ppayi£eTo rjj biavoia tov irpo<prjTOV . . . rb 5 airort-
\effp.a irpbs rbv rOirov 48iip.iovpy€tTO.
He then continues (v. 6 vuv 8e, logical as in 2 8 g 26 , answering
to ei piv in v. 4 ) the thought of Christ's superior Xei-roupyia by
describing him again (cp. 7 22 ) in connexion with the superior
SiaOrJKTi, and using now not lyyvos but ueanris. Meorr^s (see on
Gal 3 19 ) commonly means an arbitrator {e.g. Job 9 33 , Rein. P. 44 s
[a.d. 104] o KaraaraOeU KpiT7?s /Aeo-tVr/s) or intermediary in some
civil transaction (OP. 1298 19 ) ; but this writer's use of it, always in
connexion with Sia0rJKT) (9 15 12 24 ) 1 and always as a description
of Jesus (as in 1 Ti 2% implies that it is practically (see on 7 22 )
a synonym for lyyuos. Indeed, linguistically, it is a Hellenistic
equivalent for the Attic /Aere'yyws, and in Diod. Siculus, iv. 54
(tovtov yap fie<riT7]v yeyovora t£>v o/ioAoyiSv cv KdA^ois iin]yy£\dai
(3or)6rj<reiv avrrj TrapacnrovSovpLtvr)), its meaning corresponds to that
of lyyvos. The sense is plain, even before the writer develops
his ideas about the new hiadrjKt], for, whenever the idea of re-
conciliation emerges, terms like //.eo-iV^s and p.e<riTevuv are natural.
Meo-iV?7s koi SioAXokt^s is Philo's phrase 2 for Moses (Vit. Mos.
iii. 19). And as a SLadrjKrj was a gracious order of religious
fellowship, inaugurated upon some historical occasion by sacrifice,
it was natural to speak of Jesus as the One who mediated this
new hadrjK-q of Christianity. He gave it (Theophyl. /Aeo-tV^s koX
So'tt/s) ; he it was who realized it for men and who maintains it
for men. All that the writer has to say meantime about the
hiaOrjKr) is that it has been enacted (v. 6 ) em KpeiVroo-iy eiraYyeXiats.
This passive use of kopo0eTeu' is not unexampled ; cf. e.g. OGIS.
493 55 (il A.D.) koi tovto p.ev vpalv op^cos koi KaXws . . . vevo/xo-
Berr/aOu). It ; s implied, of course, that God is 6 vofxoOerwv (as in
LXX Ps 83";. What the " better promises " are, he now proceeds
to explain, by a contrast between their SiaOrjK-r) and its predecessor.
The superiority of the new oWt^ is shown by the fact that God
thereby superseded the Sici^kt/ with which the levitical cultus
was bound up; the writer quotes an oracle from Jeremiah,
again laying stress on the fact that it came after the older SiaOrjKr]
(vv. 7 ' 13 ), and enumerating its promises as contained in a new 81067^77.
1 In these two latter passages, at least, there may be an allusion to the
contemporary description of Moses as " mediator of the covenant" ("arbiter
testament!*" Ass. Mosis, i. 14). The writer does not contrast Jesus with
Michael, who was the great angelic mediator in some circles of Jewish piety
(cp. Jub I 29 , Test. Dan 6).
2 Josephus {Ant. xvi. 2. 2) says that Herod tCiv irap' 'Ayplirira tl<t\v
itri^-qTovpAvoiv fJieo-iTT)? 7jp, and that his influence moved irpbs ras evepyecrLas
oil ppadvvovra rbv 'Aypiirirap. 'Ykievai p.h yap avrbv Si-qXXajjev 6pyi£6/<.evov.
108 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VIII. 7, 8.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no
occasion for a second. 8 Whereas God does find fault with the people of that
covenant, when he says :
" The day is coming, saith the Lord,
when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and with
the house of Judah.
9 // will not be on the lines of the covenant I made with their fathers,
on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt's
Land ;
for they would not hold to my covenant,
so I left them alone, saith the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel when that
(" the day " of v. 8 ) day comes, saith the Lord ;
I will set my laws within their mind,
inscribing them upon their hearts ;
I will be a God (els 6e6v, i.e. all that men can expect a God to be) to
them,
and they shall be a People to me ;
11 one citizen will no longer teach his fellow,
one man will no longer teach his brother (top d5e\<pbt> avrov, i.e. one
another, Ex io 23 ),
saying, " Know the Lord."
for all shall know me, low and high together.
12 / will be merciful to their iniquities,
and remember their sins no more.
13 By saying " a new covenant," he antiquates the first. And whatever is
antiquated and aged is on the verge of vanishing.
The contents of the prediction of a ko.\.v\\ SiaGrjio) by God,
and the very fact that such was necessary, prove the defectiveness
of the first SiaOrjicq. The writer is struck by the mention of a
new SiadrjKr) even in the OT itself, and he now explains the
significance of this. As for r\ irpw-nr) (sc. 8ia6i]Kr)) iK.eivr\, el . . .
afiep-TTTos (if no fault could have been found with it), ouk &v
SeuTe'pas c£t|T€ito tottos. AeuTe'pas is replaced by eTtpas in B* (so
B. Weiss, Blass) ; but, while Irepos could follow 7rpu>Tos (Mt 21 30 ),
Seirrcpos is the term chosen in io 9 , and B* is far too slender
evidence by itself. Z^relv to-kov is one of those idiomatic phrases,
like evpuv T07rov and Aa^Seiv tottov, of which the writer was fond.
The force of the yap after pep<j>6p.ef os is : " and there was occasion
for a second Sia#^K?7, the first was not ap.ep,TTTos, since," etc. It
need make little or no difference to the sense whether we read
au-rois (X c B D c L 6. 38. 88. 104. 256. 436. 467. 999. 131 1. 1319.
1739. 1837. 1845. 1912. 2004. 2127 Origen) or avrovs (n % * A D* K P
W 33 vg arm), for /i.e/A<po//,cvos can take a dative as well as
an accusative (cf. Arist. Khet. i. 6. 24, Kopiv9ioi<; 8' ov /xe/^erai to
TAiov : Aesch. Prom. 63, oiSels cVoYkws /xe/xxj/aiTo fxoi) in the sense of
" censuring " or " finding fault with," and /xeyxcpo'/tevos naturally goes
with avTots or auTov's. The objection to taking au-rois with Xe'yei l
1 fiefupd/xevos is then " by way of censure," and some think the writer
purposely avoided adding avTrjv. Which, in view of what he says in v. 13 , is
doubtful ; besides, he has iust said that the former 5ia8r]K7] was not d/xefj-irros.
VIII. 8.] THE ORACLE OF JEREMIAH 109
is that the quotation is not addressed directly to the people,
but spoken at large. Thus the parallel from 2 Mac 2 7 (/xe/xt/'a-
//.evos aurots ctTrtj/) is not decisive, and the vg is probably correct
in rendering "vituperans enim eos dicit." The context ex-
plains here as in 4 8 and n 28 who are meant by avrovs. The
real interest of the writer in this Jeremianic oracle is shown when
he returns to it in io 16-18 ; what arrests him is the promise of a
free, full pardon at the close. But he quotes it at length, partly
because it did imply the supersession of the older hiadr/Kti and
partly because it contained high promises (vv. 10 " 12 ), higher than
had yet been given to the People. No doubt it also contains a
warning (v. 9 ), like the text from the 95th psalm (3 7f -), but this is
not why he recites it (see p. xl).
The text of Jer 38 31 - 34 (31 31 - 34 ) as he read it in his bible (i.e.
in A) ran thus :
ISov y)p.ipai epxovrai, Aeyci Kvpios,
Kal SiaOrjo-Ofiai T<3 oikcd 'I07W/A. kcu tw o*ku> 'Iov'Sa SiaOrjKrjv
Kaivrjv,
ov Kara ttjv SiaOrjKrjv rjv SuOe/xrjv tois rvarpdaiv avrwv
iv fjptpa cViXa/3o/x£vov /xov rr)<; x €t P°s avTWV i^ayay&v avrovs ck
yr)<; KlyinrTOv,
on avrol ovk iv£p,eivav iv rfj SiadrJKr/ fiov,
xayw 7]jxe\r](ra avrwv, (prjcrlv Kvpios.
on avrr) r) 8ia6i]K7) r)v 8ia$ri<TOfjLa.L t<2 oiku> lapayX
para ras rj/j.epa<; eKCivas, cpr]o~iv Kvpios,
SiSovs vofiovs [X.ov eis ri]V Siavotav avrwv
Kal i-7TLypa.\pw auTOUS irrl ras KapSias avrwv,
Kal oij/o/xat avrovs
Kal Irjo/iai avrol<; «is debv.
Kal avrol eaovrat tioi €15 Xaov.
Kal ov p.rj 1 Si8a£wcriv I/caorTos rbv aSe\cf>bv avrov
Kal CKaCTTOS rbv irXfjcrLOV avrov Aeywv" yvwOi rov Kvpiov,
on 7ravT€S lorjcrovcnv /xe
a7ro [jiiKpov lea? paydXov avrwv,
on lActos ecro/xat Tats dSiKiais avrwv
Kal rwv d/xapr iwv avrwv ov p.r) p.vrjO'dw en.
Our author follows as usual the text of A upon the whole {e.g. \tyei fot
(prjalv in v. 31 , K&yio in v. 32 , the omission of p.ov after diadrjKrj and of dwcrw
after didofo in v. 33 , ov /jltj didd^wcriv for ov 5i8d£ovo-iv in v. 34 and the omission
of avrwv after /u/cpoD), but substitutes avvreKiaw iirl rbv otnov (bis) for 8i.a6-fi-
ffoficu ry olkw in v.* 1 , reads \iyei for (prjcriv in v. 32 and v. 33 , alters 8Ledt/j.r)v
into tiroL7)<ja (Q*), and follows B in reading Kal i-rrl k. avrwv before the verb
(v. 33 ), and iro\irr]v . . dde\<p6v in v. 34 , as well as in omitting Kal 6\j/. aiirovs
(A n) in the former verse ; in v. 84 he reads ei8r)o-ovo-iv (n Q) instead of
1 ov /jlt) only occurs in Hebrews in quotations (here, 10 17 13 s ) ; out of
about ninety-six occurrences in the NT, only eight are with the future.
IIO THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [VIII. 8-10.
i8r)(Tov<Ttv, the forms of oT5a and eT5ov being repeatedly confused (cp. Thackeray,
278). These minor changes may be partly due to the fact that he is quoting
from memory. In some cases his own text has been conformed to other
versions of the LXX ; e.g. AD^ boh restore fiov in v. 10 , n* K vg Clem.
Chrys. read Kapdiav (with N in LXX), though the singular 1 is plainly a con-
formation to 5ia.voi.av (" Fur den Plural sprechen ausser A D L noch B,
wo nur das C in 6 verschrieben und daraus eiri Kapdia eavraiv geworden ist,
und P, wo der Dat. in den Ace. verwandelt," B. Weiss in Texte u. Unter-
suchungen, xiv. 3. 16, 55) ; B ^ arm revive the LXX (B) variant yp&xftw ; the
LXX (Q) variant ir\t]alov is substituted for ito\Ltt)v by P vg syr hkJ eth 38.
206. 218. 226. 257. 547. 642. 1288. 131 1. 1912, etc. Cyril, and the LXX
(B Q n) aurQv restored after fUKpov by D° L syr boh eth, etc. On the other
hand, a trait like the reading ^iroitjaa in the LXX text of Q* may be due to the
influence of Hebrews itself. The addition of ko.1 tQv &vo/juQv avrwv after or
before icai tQv a/j.apTiu>v avruv in v. 12 is a homiletic gloss from io 17 , though
strongly entrenched inK c ACDKLP*6. 104. 326, etc. vg pesh arm Clem
locTeXe'crw SiaGrjicru', a literary LXX variant for iroirja-tj} Siadrjxrjv,
recalls the phrase o-wreXeo-cu SiadyKrjv (Jer 41 8 (34 s )), and, as 12 24
(vias 8ia6rjicr|s) shows, the writer draws no distinction between
kcuvos and ve'os (v. 8 ). In v. 9 the genitive absolute (€7riXaj3o/j.eVou
p,ou) after T)jj.e'pa, instead of cv 77 67reXa/3oja?7v (as Justin correctly
puts it, Dial, xi.), is a Hellenistic innovation, due here to trans-
lation, but paralleled in Bar 2 28 e'v rjn-ipa eVreiXa/xevou aov avT(S) ;
in on (causal only here and in v. 10 ) . . . ivifieivav, the latter is our
" abide by," in the sense of obey or practise, exactly as in
Isokrates, Kara. tu>v 2o<j!>io-twi>, 20 : ols et tis iirl tcjv irpd^etov
ififietveuv. Bengel has a crisp comment on aurol . . . KaycS here
and on ccofiai . . . kch au-roi (" correlata . . . sed ratione inversa ;
populus fecerat initium tollendi foederis prius, in novo omnia et
incipit et perficit Deus ") ; and, as it happens, there is a dramatic
contrast between Tjp.€XT)aa here and the only other use of the
verb in this epistle (2 3 ). In v. 10 SiSous, by the omission of Swcrto,
is left hanging in the air; but (cp. Moulton, 222) such participles
could be taken as finite verbs in popular Greek of the period
(cp. e.g. x«poi-ov?7#eis in 2 Co 8 19 ). The ttaivi) 8ia0f]icr) is to be
on entirely fresh lines, not a mere revival of the past ; it is to
realize a knowledge of God which is inward and intuitive
(vv. 10 - n ). There is significance in the promise, ica! ecrojicu au-nns
... els \a6v. A 8ia6T]Kr) was always between God and his
people, and this had been the object even of the former 8ia6r}i<7]
(Ex. 6") ; now it is to be realized at last. Philo's sentence
(" even if we are sluggish, however, He is not sluggish about
taking to Himself those who are fit for His service ; for He says,
' I will take you to be a people for myself, and I will be your
God,"' De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, 26) is an apt comment; but
our author, who sees the new SiaO-QKt] fulfilled in Christianity, has
1 That iirl takes the accusative here is shown by io 16 ; Kapdlas cannot be
the genitive singular alongside of an accusative.
VIII. 10-13.] OLD AND NEW III
his own views about how such a promise and purpose was
attainable, for while the oracle ignores the sacrificial ritual
altogether, he cannot conceive any pardon apart from sacrifice,
nor any oia6rj>cr] apart from a basal sacrifice. These ideas he is
to develop in his next paragraphs, for it is the closing promise
of pardon x which is to him the supreme boon. Meanwhile,
before passing on to explain how this had been mediated by
Jesus, he (v. 13 ) drives home the truth of the contrast between old
and new (see Introd., p. xxxix). 'Ev tu> \eyew (same construc-
tion as in 2 8 ) — when the word Kai^rjv (sc. oiaOrJKrjv) was pro-
nounced, it sealed the doom of the old oiadr/K-q. riaXaiou
(ircTraXaicoKe) in this transitive sense (" he hath abrogat," Tyndale)
is known to the LXX (Job 9 5 , La 3*, both times of God in
action) ; yr\pa.<TKz\.v is practically equivalent to p.apaive<rdai, and
implies decay (see Wilamowitz on Eur. Herakles, 1223). The
two words eyyus (as in 6 8 ) d<j>avio-/jioo, at the end of the paragraph,
sound like the notes of a knell, though they have no contem-
porary reference ; the writer simply means that the end of the old
foaOrjKr) was at hand (p. xxii). The new would soon follow, as it
had done cv vlw (i 1 ). The verb dcf>avt(eiv (-co-Oat) is applied to legis-
lation (e.g., Lysias, 868, r>jv vp,€Tepav vop-oOeatav d(£avi£ovTas) in
the sense of abolition, lapsing or falling into desuetude, Dion.
Hal. Ant. iii. 178, ds (i.e. Numa's laws) 6.(fjavia6rjvaL <rvve/3r) tw
Xpovw, the opposite of d<£avi'£etv being ypdfaiv (ibid. ix. 608,
Kara. tov5 vo/jlovs, ovs ov vcojoti oetja-et ypa<f>eiv ttoXcli yap iypd<pr)o~av,
Kal ouScis avrous ^$dvi£e xP° vo<: )> an( ^ the sense of disappearance in
d(£avioy*.os appears already in the LXX (e.g. Jer 28 37 *ai co-rat
Ba/3iAwi' ct? d<£av«r/AOv).
But the new oiaOrjKrj is also superior to the old by its sacrifice
(9 lf -), sacrifice being essential to any forgiveness such as has been
promised. The older oiaO-qn^ had its sanctuary and ritual (vv. 1 * 5 ),
but even these (vv. 6f .) indicated a defect.
1 The first covenant had indeed its regulations for worship and a material
sanctuaiy. 2 A tent was set up {Karao-Kevd^u as in 3 3 ), the outer tent, con-
taining the lampstand, the table, and the loaves of the Presence ; this is
called the Holy place. s But behind (fierd only here in NT of place) the
second veil was the tent called the Holy of Holies, * containing the golden
altar of incense, and also the ark of the covenant covered all over with gold,
which held the golden pot of manna, the rod of Aaron that once blossomed,
and the tablets of the covenant ; 5 above this were the cherubim of the Glory
overshadowing the mercy-seat — matters which {i.e. all in 2 " 5 ) it is impossible
for me to discuss at present in detail.
1 With tCov anapTlwv avrQv ov ixt\ fivrjo-du) <fri compare the parable of R.
Jochanan and R. Eliezer on God's readiness to forget the sinful nature of his
servants : " There is a parable concerning a king of flesh and blood, who said
to his servants, Build me a great palace on the dunghill. They went and
built it for him. It was not thenceforward the king's pleasure to remember
the dunghill which had been there" (Chagiga, 16 a. i. 27).
112 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 1.
The tcaii/T] SiaO^Kri of 8 7 ' 13 had been realized by the arrival of
Christ (9 11 ) ; hence the older SiaOrjur) was superseded, and the
writer speaks of it in the past tense, etxe. As for tj irpwTT] (sc.
ZiadriKfj) of which he has been just speaking (8 13 ), the antithesis
of the entire passage is between rj irpom) 8ia0T]KT| (vv. 1-10 ) and
r\ Kaiioj SiaGrJKT] (vv. 11 " 22 ), as is explicitly stated in v. 15 . The kcu
(om. B 38. 206*. 216*. 489. 547. 1739. 1827 boh pesh Origen)
before if) TxpajTY] emphasizes the fact that the old had this in
common with the new, viz. worship and a sanctuary. This is, of
course, out of keeping with the Jeremianic oracle of the new
SiaO^K-q, which does not contemplate any such provision, but
the writer takes a special view of hiaO-qK-q which involves a
celestial counterpart to the ritual provisions of the old order.
The former ^LaOrjKrj, then, embraced SucaiufjiaTa, i.e. regula-
tions, as in Lk i 6 and 1 Mac 2 21 - 22 (TAews 17/uv KaraXeiTreiv vofiov
KO.I SiKaiw/xaTa tov vo/xov tov fiacriXetDS ovk aKovcrop-eOa, iraptKOtiv
tt]v XarpCav rjfxCyv), rather than rights or privileges (as, e.g.,
OP. Ill 9 15 Toiv i$aipeT(DV t?}s T7/x€Tepas 7raT/3t'8os SiKaiayiaTtov),
arrangements for the cultus. A(vrpe£as grammatically might be
accusative plural (as in v. 6 ), but is probably the genitive, after
SiKcuayurra, which it defines. Aarpcia or (as spelt in W) karpia
(cp. Thackeray, 87) is the cultus (Ro 9 4 ), or any specific part of
it (Ex i2 25 * 27 ). The close connexion between worship and a
sanctuary (already in 8 2 - 3 ) leads to the addition of to tc (as in
1 3 6 5 ) ayiov Koap.iKoi'. By t6 ayioc the author means the entire
sanctuary (so, e.g., Ex 36 s , Nu 3 38 ), not the innermost sacred
shrine or ayta aytwv. This is clear. What is not so clear is the
meaning of koo-jukoV, and the meaning of its position after the
noun without an article. Primarily Kocr/tiKos here as in Ti 2 12
(ras Kocr/uKas iTn6vp,ia<i) is an equivalent for iirl y^s (8 3 ), i.e.
mundane or material, as opposed to i-aoupdviov or ou Tau-njs ttjs
KTiacus (v. 11 ). A fair parallel to this occurs in Test. Jos. 17 8 ,
Sta. rrjv Kocrp.iKrjv p.ov 8o^av. But did our author use it with a
further suggestion? It would have been quite irrelevant to his
purpose to suggest the "public" aspect of the sanctuary, al-
though Jews like Philo and Josephus might speak of the temple
as Kocr/AtKos in this sense, i.e. in contrast to synagogues and
■n-pocrevxa-h which were of local importance (Philo, ad Caium.
1019), or simply as a place of public worship (e.g. Jos. Bell.
iv. 5. 2, t^s KOcrp.iKrj<; 6pr]cn<eia<; /carapxovra?, irpo<ri<vvovp.€vov<; tc
tois Ik TTj'i oiKovjAevTjs TrapafiaWovcrii' ets tt]V 7roA.1v). Neither
would our author have called the sanctuary K007/.1KOS as symbolic
of the Koo-/xos, though Philo (Vit. Mosis, iii. 3-10) and Josephus
(Ant. iii. 6. 4, iii. 7. 7> ixaa-ra yap tovtwv fis aTro/XL/xijaiv Kai
SiaxuVwo-u' rail/ oXwv) also play with this fancy. He views the
sanctuary as a dim representation of the divine sanctuary, not
IX. 1-4.] THE FIRST SANCTUARY I 1 3
of the universe. Yet he might have employed koo-/juk6v in a
similar sense, if we interpret the obscure phrase p.v<TTypwv ko<t/u-
kov iKKXrjo-ias in Did. 11 11 (see the notes of Dr. C. Taylor and
Dr. Rendel Harris in their editions) as a spiritual or heavenly
idea, "depicted in the world of sense by emblematic actions or
material objects," "a symbol or action wrought upon the stage
of this world to illustrate what was doing or to be done on a
higher plane." Thus, in the context of the Didache, marriage
would be a pwar^piov KoafitKov (cp. Eph 5 32 ) of the spiritual rela-
tion between Christ and his church. This early Christian usage
may have determined the choice of Koo-p-ixov here, the sanctuary
being kovixikov because it is the material representation or
parabolic outward expression of the true, heavenly sanctuary.
But at best it is a secondary suggestion ; unless Koa-p-iKov could
be taken as "ornamented," the controlling idea is that the
sanctuary and its ritual were external and material (SiKaiw/xaTa
o-ap/co?, x eL P 07roL V TOV > x et / ^07^0t ' 7 ? Ta )• The very position of koo-jxikov
denotes, as often in Greek, a stress such as might be conveyed
in English by "a sanctuary, material indeed."
The ayioi' is now described (v. 2f -), after Ex 25-26. It con-
sisted of two parts, each called a <TKr\vr]. The large outer tent,
the first (tj irpcuTT]) to be entered, was called "Ayia (neut. plur.,
not fem. sing.). The phrase, tjtis XeyeTcu "Ayia 1 would have
been in a better position immediately after tj -n-peS-n), where,
indeed, Chrysostom (followed by Blass) reads it, instead of after
the list of the furniture. The lampstand stood in front (to the
south) of the sacred table on which twelve loaves or cakes of
wheaten flour were piled (tj TrpoGeais tw apTwv = 01 aprot tt}?
Trpotfecrews), the Hebrew counterpart of the well-known lectis-
ternia : tj Tpdire^a . . . apTu^ is a hendiadys for " the table with
its loaves of the Presence." Such was the furniture of the outer
o-Krjvrj. Then (vv. 3 " 5 ) follows a larger catalogue (cp./oma 2 4 ) of
what lay inside the inner shrine (ayia ayiwi/) behind the curtain
(Ex 27 16 ) which screened this from the outer tent, and which is
called SeuTcpoy KaTa.TreTao-p.a, 8euT€poy, because the first was a curtain
hung at the entrance to the larger tent, and KaTa.TreTacrp.a, either
because that is the term used in Ex 2 6 3l£ (the particular passage
the writer has in mind here), the term elsewhere being usually
KaXv/xp-a or liriairaaTpov (Ex 26 s6 etc.), or because Philo had
expressly distinguished the outer curtain as KaXvp\p.a, the inner
as KaTarr€Tacrp.a {de vita Mosis, iii. 9). This inner shrine con-
tained (v. 4 ) yjpvvouv 0up.iciTTJpi.ok', i.e. a wooden box, overlaid with
gold, on which incense (Qvp.iap,a.) was offered twice daily by the
priests. The LXX calls this Ovaiao-Tijpiov tov 6vpndp.aTo<; (Ex
30 1 - 10 ), but our writer follows the usage of Philo, which is also,
1 Td"A7ia (B arm) is an attempt to reproduce exactly the LXX phrase.
[14 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 4.
on the whole, that of Josephus, in calling it 6vp.iaTrjpiov (so
Symm. Theodotion, Ex 30 1 31 8 ); dvpnarypiov, in the non-biblical
papyri, denotes articles like censers in a sanctuary, but is never
used in the LXX of levitical censers, though Josephus occasion-
ally describes them thus, like the author of 4 Mac 7 11 . The
ordinary view was that this 0u[xiaTr)pioi' stood beside the Xuxfia
and the sacred rpdire^a in the outer sanctuary. Both Philo (e.g.
quis rer. div. 46, t/diwj/ ovtwv eV tois dyiois o-xeuewv, Avvvias,
TpaTre'^r;?, 6vfi.LaTrjpLov : de vita Mos. iii. 9 f., in the outer tent, to.
Xoiwa rpia o-Kevr} . . . p.eaov fxev to 8vp.ia.Tr)piov . . . ttjv Sc Xvx^tav
. . . f) &k rpdiT^a) and Josephus {Ant. iii. 6. 4 f. ; cp. viii. 4. x for
the reproduction in Solomon's temple) are quite explicit on this.
Indeed no other position was possible for an altar which required
daily service from the priests ; inside the ayia. twj/ dyiW it would
have been useless. But another tradition, which appears in the
contemporary (Syriac) apocalypse of Baruch (6 7 ), placed the
altar of incense ! inside the Syia dyia^, a view reflected as early
as the Samaritan text of the pentateuch, which put Ex 30 1 - 10
(the description of the altar of incense) after 26 s5 , where logically
it ought to stand, inserting a inrp ^zb in Ex 40 27 (where the
altar of incense is placed " before the veil"). The earliest hint
of this tradition seems to be given in the Hebrew text of 1 K 6 22 ,
where Solomon is said to have overlaid with gold " the altar that
is by the oracle" (i.e. the dyta dy<W). But our author could not
have been influenced by this, for it is absent from the LXX text.
His inaccuracy was rendered possible by the vague language of
the pentateuch about the position of the altar of incense, a-rrevavTi
tov KaTa.7T6Tdoyi.aTOS tou oVtos €7ti tt}s ki/3wtou toiv p.apTvpiwv
(Ex 30°), where aTreVavTi may mean "opposite" or "close in
front of" the curtain— but on which side of it? In Ex 37 the
Tpd7re£a, the A^i'ia, and the altar of incense are described
successively after the items in the dyta dy<W ; but then the LXX
did not contain the section on the altar of incense, so that this
passage offered no clue to our writer. In Ex 40 5 it is merely put
IvavTiov rrjs kl(3(j)tov. This vagueness is due to the fact that in
the original source the sketch of the o-K-qvrj had no altar of
incense at all ; the latter is a later accretion, hence the curious
position of Ex 30 1 - 10 in a sort of appendix, and the ambiguity
about its site.
After all it is only an antiquarian detail for our author. It has been
suggested that he regarded *he dyta tCov ayluv, irrespective of the veil, as
symbolizing the heavenly sanctuary, and that he therefore thought it must
include the altar of incense as symbolizing the prayers of the_ saints. But
there is no trace of such a symbolism elsewhere in the epistle ; it is confined to
the author of the Apocalypse (8 3 H The suggestion that he meant fx»w»
1 Whether the language means this or a censer is disputed.
IX. 4, 5.] THE SACRED ARK I I 5
to express only a close or ideal connexion between the inner shrine and the
altar of incense, is popular (e.g. Delitzsch, Zahn, Peake, Seeberg) but quite
unacceptable ; 2x owTa as applied to the other items could not mean this, 1 and
what applies to them applies to the dufMiarr/piov. Besides, the point of the
whole passage is to distinguish between the contents of the two compartments.
Still less tenable is the idea that dvp.io.Ti)pi.ov really means "censer" or
" incense pan." This way out of the difficulty was started very early (in the
peshitta, the vulgate), but a censer is far too minor a utensil to be included in
this inventory ; even the censer afterwards used on atonement-day did not
belong to the iLyia tQv ayiwv, neither was it golden. What the cK-qv-q had
was merely a brazier (irvpe'iov, Lv i6 12 ). Since it is not possible that so
important an object as the altar of incense could have been left out, we may
assume without much hesitation that the writer did mean to describe it by
dv/Aiarripiov, 2 and that the irregularity of placing it on the wrong side of the
curtain is simply another of his inaccuracies in describing what he only
knew from the text of the LXX. In B the slip is boldly corrected by the
transference of (/cai) XP 1 " 3 ' ^ 1 ' Ovfuar^piov to v. 2 , immediately after tipruv (so
Blass).
The second item is tt|v kiPutoi' ttjs SiaGfjKTjs covered with gold
all over (irdrroOev : Philo's phrase is Zv&oSev ko.1 1£<d6zv, de Ebriet.
21), a chest or box about 4 feet long and z\ feet broad and high
(Ex 25 10f -), which held three sacred treasures, (a) the golden pot
(arrdfAeos, Attic feminine) of manna (Ex i6 32-34 ) ; (b) Aaron's rod r\
p\ao-T>]crao-a (in the story of Nu 1 7 1 " 11 , which attested the sacerdotal
monopoly of the clan of Levi) ; and (c) at tt\(£k€s ttj? 8ia0rjicr)s
(Ex 25 16f - 3 1 18 ), i.e. the two stone tablets on which the decalogue
was written (ir\a.Kas SiaOrjKrjS, Dt 9 9 ; £v£f3a\ov Tas 7rAd/ca5 eh ttjv
kl/3wt6v, io 5 ), the decalogue summarizing the terms of the ScaQ-qKr]
for the People. In adding XP V<T V t° vTa.jxvo<i the writer follows the
later tradition of the LXX and of Philo {de congressu, 18) ; the pot
is not golden in the Hebrew original. He also infers, as later
Jewish tradition did, that the ark contained this pot, although,
like Aaron's rod, it simply lay in front of the ark (Ex i6 33 - 34 , Nu
17 10 ). He would gather from 1 K 8 9 that the ark contained the
tablets of the covenant. He then (v. 6 ) mentions the xepoufJeiV
(Aramaic form) or x e P ou PeiJi (Hebrew form) S6£tjs, two small
winged figures (Ex 25 18 " 20 ), whose pinions extended over a
rectangular gold slab, called to iXaoT^pioK, laid on the top of the
ark, which it fitted exactly. They are called cherubim Ao£r;s,
which is like McyaAwo-wr/s (i 3 8 1 ) a divine title, applied to Jesus
in Ja 2 1 , but here used as in Ro q 4 . The cherubim on the
IXaoTTJpioy represented the divine Presence as accessible in mercy ;
the mystery of this is suggested by the couplet in Sir 49 s ( 10 ) :
'Ie^c/aijA., os eTSev opacriv Ao^rys
r/v V7re8ei$ev avr<2 e7rt ap/xaTos ^epouySci'/i.
1 The change from iv y to ^x ovffa 1S purely stylistic, and Zx ovaOL in both
instances means "containing."
2 xpucoOv dvfjLiarripiov lacks the article, like <tto.ij.vos xpvcrTj.
Il6 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 5.
Philo's account of to IXacrr^pioi' is given in de vita Mosis, iii.
8, r/ 81 ki/3o>t6s . . . Ke^pvawfj-evrj TroXvreXtos Zi'8o6ev tc /cai e£a>#ei/,
17s i-TriOe/AO. wcravei 7rto/xa to Xeyo/xevov Iv Upais /3t(3\oi<; WaGTrjpiov
. . . oVep tOLK€v ct^ai (rv/xfioXov (pvcrtKwTepov pukv t?/s fXeco tov tieov
Swva/Aews. Lower down, in the same paragraph, he speaks of
to iwiOefia to Trpocrayopevo/xerov l\ao~Tr)piov, and to IXao-T^piOf is
similarly used in De Cherub. 8 (on the basis of Ex 25 19 ). The
emOefici or covering of the ark was splashed with blood on
atonement-day ; perhaps, even apart from that, its Hebrew
original meant " means of propitiation," and was not incorrectly
named ikturrfipiov (cp. Deissmann in EBi. 3027-3035;, but our
author simply uses it in its LXX sense of " mercy-seat." He does
not enter into any details about its significance ; in his scheme
of sacrificial thought such a conception had no place. Philo
also allegorizes the overshadowing wings of the cherubim as a
symbol of God's creative and royal powers protecting the cosmos,
and explains Ex 25 22 as follows (Quaest. in Exod. 25 22 ): to. pxv
ovv Trepl tt/v kl(3wtov Kara, /xepos elprjTaC 8el Se o-v\Xy]fi8t]v avotdey
di/aAa/3ovTa tov yvwpicrai X®-P iV T " /w ' / Tatrra cctti (rvp./3oXa 8ie£e\0elv
rjv 8e TauTa o~vp./3o\iKa.' /a/Jarros kcu to. ev airfj Orjaavpiipp-eva vop.tp.a
KO.I €7Tl TaVTYj<; TO IXacTTr/piOV KCLL TO. €7Tl tov IkacrTrj piov XaXoaiW
yXijiTTrj Xeydyueva xepovfiifL, virep 8e tovtwv Kara to p.eo~ov <pa)vr) /cai
Xdyos Kai vTrepdvdi 6 Xeyuiv ktX. But our author does not enter
into any such details. He has no time for further discussion of
the furniture, he observes ; whether he would have allegorized
these items of antiquarian ritual, if or when he had leisure, we
cannot tell. The only one he does employ mystically is the Kcn-a-
TrtTaaaa (io 20 ), and his use of it is not particularly happy. He
now breaks off, almost as Philo does (guis rer. div. 45, 7roXw 8' ovTa
tov ivepl (KacrTOV Xoyov VTrepOereov elaavOt^) on the same subject.
Kcn-a jAe'pos is the ordinary literary phrase in this connexion (e.g.
2 Mac 2 30 ; Polybius, i. 67. 1 1, Trepl <Dv oi^ olov T€ 81a ttj% ypacprjs t6v
kclto. p.ipo<; aTroSovvaL Xoyov, and Poimandres [ed. Reitzenstein, p. 84]
irepL u)v o KaTa p.epos Aoyos €Q"ti ttoavs). Ouk e<TTiv as in I L-0 1 1 .
Worship in a sanctuary like this shows that access to God
was defective (vv. 6 " 8 ), as was inevitable when the sacrifices were
external (vv. 8 " 10 ). Having first shown this, the writer gets back to
the main line of his argument (8 2 ), viz. the sacrifice of Jesus
as pre-eminent and final (v. llf -).
6 Such were the arrangements for worship. The priests constantly enter
the first tent (v. 2 ) in the discharge of their ritual duties, 7 but the second tent
is entered only once a year by the highpriest alone — and it must not be with-
out blood, which he presents on behalf of (cp. 5 3 ) himself and the errors of
the People. 8 By this the holy Spirit means that the way into the Holiest
Presence was not yet disclosed so long as the first tent 9 (which foreshadowed
the present age) was still standing, with its offerings of gifts and sacrifices
which cannot (fj.-q as in 4 2 ) possibly make the conscience of the worshipper
IX. 6-8.] THE CULTUS 117
perfect, 10 since they relate (sc. otcrai) merely to food and drink and a variety
of ablutions — outward regulations for the body, that only hold till the period
of the New Order.
In v. 6 Sioi ttch'tos = continually, as in BM. i. 42 s (ii B.C.) ol ev
oIku) 7ravT€S crov Sia7ravTos fiveiav iroiovpuvoL. Eicriaaii' (which
might even be the present with a futuristic sense, the writer
placing himself and his readers back at the inauguration of the
sanctuary : " Now, this being all ready, the priests will enter," etc.)
cmTeXourres (a regular sacerdotal or ritual term in Philo) XaTpeias
(morning and evening, to trim the lamps and offer incense on the
golden altar, Ex 27 21 3o 7f - etc. ; weekly, to change the bread of
the Presence, Lv 24 8f -, Jos. Ant. iii. 6. 6). The ritual of the
inner shrine (v. 3 ) is now described (v. 7 , cp. Joma 5 3 ) ; the place is
entered by the highpriest a-ira£ toG eeiaurou, on the annual day of
atonement (Lv i6 29 - 34 , Ex 30 10 ) : only once, and he must be
alone (^tovos, Lv 16 17 ), this one individual out of all the priests.
Even he dare not enter x w P l s aiH- aT0S (Lv i6 14f -), i.e. without
carrying in blood from the sacrifice offered for his own and the
nation's a.>ivQf\)i.6xuv. In Gn 43 12 dyvorjfjui is "an oversight," but
in Jg 5 20 Tob 3 3 , 1 Mac 13 39 , Sir 23 2 dyvo^ara and "sins '
are bracketed together (see above on 5 2 ), and the word occurs
alone in Polyb. xxxviii. 1. 5 as an equivalent for "offences" or
" errors " in the moral sense. There is no hint that people were
not responsible for them, or that they were not serious ; on the
contrary, they had to be atoned for. Yire'p ktX. ; for a similarly
loose construction cp. I Jn 2 2 (ov irepi fiixerlpuv [a/xaprcwv] 81
fiovov, a\\a xal rrepl o\ov tov Koa/xov).
Rabbi Ismael b. Elischa, the distinguished exegete of i-ii A.n., classified
sins as follows (Tos. Joma 5 6 ) : Transgressions of positive enactments were
atoned for by repentance, involving a purpose of new obedience, according
to Jer 22 23 (" Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your back-
slidings"). The day of atonement, however, was necessary for the full
pardon of offences against divine prohibitions: according to Lv i6 30 ("On
that day shall the priest make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye
may be clean from all your sins "). An offender whose wrongdoing deserved
severe or capital punishment could only be restored by means of sufferings :
according to Ps 89 s2 (" Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and
their iniquity with stripes"). But desecration of the divine Name could not
be atoned for by any of these three methods ; death alone wiped out this sin
(Jer 2 4 «).
The author now (v. 8 ) proceeds to find a spiritual significance
in this ceremonial. Ar|\ouyTos is used of a divine meaning as in
12 27 , here conveyed by outward facts. In 1 P 1 11 the verb is
again used of the Spirit, and this is the idea here; Josephus
{Ant. iii. 7. 7, S77A.01 8e kol -roy t/Aiov kou tt/v creXrjvqv twv aapSov^cuv
eKciTcpog) uses the same verb for the mystic significance of the
jewels worn by the highpriest, but our author's interpretation of
the significance of the o-ky]vtj is naturally very different from that
I 1 8 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 8-10.
of Josephus, who regards the unapproachable character of the
a8vTov or inner shrine as symbolizing heaven itself (Ant. iii. 6. 4
and 7. 7, o T019 Upevaiv rjv afiarov, ws ovpavbs dveiro ™ 6ew . . .
Sid to kclI rbv ovpavbv dv€7ri/JaT0V ctvai avOpunrofi). For 606V with
gen. in sense of "way to," cp. Gn 3 24 (tt)v 68ov tov £i!Aou ttJs
£a»}s), Jg 5 14 (ei? 6Sov tou 2tva). Toil' dyicok here (like to. dyia in
vv 12. 25 ? C p > j^n) as m I0 i9 means the very Presence of God, an
archaic liturgical phrase suggested by the context. The word
<j>ai/epoucr9ai was not found by the writer in his text of the LXX ;
it only occurs in the LXX in Jer 40 (33) 6 , and the Latin phrase
"iter patefieri" (e.g. Caesar, de Bello Gall. iii. 1) is merely a
verbal parallel. In rfjs irpoSrqs cno^s cxoucttjs crrdaiv (v. 9 ), the
writer has chosen cn-do-iv for the sake of assonance with iveo-T^Kora,
but lx €lv o-tolo-lv is a good Greek phrase for " to be in existence."
The parenthesis tjtis l irapaPoXrj (here = tuVos, as Chrysostom saw)
els Toy Kcupoy rbv eyeoTTjKOTa means that the first a-K-qvq was merely
provisional, as it did no more than adumbrate the heavenly
reality, and provisional els (as in Ac 4 3 eh r-qv avptov) rbv
Kaipbv rbv iveo-TrjKOTa, i.e. the period in which the writer and his
readers lived, the period inaugurated by the advent of Jesus with
his new 8ia0rjia]. This had meant the supersession of the older
§La6r)K-q with its sanctuary and 8iKcuu>p.aTa, which only lasted
p.e'xpi KaipoG SiopOoWews. But, so long as they lasted, they were
intended by God to foreshadow the permanent order of religion ;
they were, as the writer says later (v. 23 ), u-rroo€iyp,aTa twv iv tois
oupayois, mere copies but still copies. This is why he calls the
fore-tent a irapa|3o\r). For now, as he adds triumphantly, in a
daring, imaginative expression, our dpxiepeus has passed through
his heavenly fore-tent (v. 11 ), and his heavenly sanctuary corre-
sponds to a heavenly (i.e. a full and final) sacrifice. In the
levitical ritual the highpriest on atonement-day took the blood
of the victim through the fore-tent into the inner shrine. Little
that accomplished ! It was but a dim emblem of what our high-
priest was to do and has done, in the New Order of things.
When readers failed to see that tjti9 . . . Iv«o-tt)k(5to was a parenthesis, it
was natural that ko.0' fy should be changed into Ka9' 8v (D c K LP, so Blass).
The failure of animal sacrifices ( 9b - 10 ) lies icon-d o-\ivel%r\<jiv. As
the inner consciousness here is a consciousness of sin, "con-
science " fairly represents the Greek term o-weio^o-is. Now, the
levitical sacrifices were ineffective as regards the conscience of
worshippers; they were merely cm Ppwp.ao-ii' Kal ■n-op.acri.p kcu oia<J>6-
pois |3a-nTio-p.ois, a striking phrase (cp. 13 9 ) of scorn for the mass of
1 Sc. Tjv. The construction was explained by the addition of KadtaT-qKtv
after ivear^Ta. (so 69. 104. 330. 436. 440. 462. 491. 823. 13 19. 1836. 1837.
1S98. 2005. 2127, etc.).
IX. 10.] THE CULTUS 119
minute regulations about what might or might not be eaten or
drunk, and about baths, etc. Food and ablutions are intelligible ;
a book like Leviticus is full of regulations about them. But
irofxaaiv? Well, the writer adds this as naturally as the author of
Ep. Aristeas does, in describing the levitical code. " I suppose
most people feel some curiosity about the enactments of our law
Trepl re twv (Spwrwv /ecu ttotwv " (128) ; it was to safeguard us from
pagan defilement that TravroBev 17/Aas 7r€pU<f)pa£ev dyveicus kcu Sia
fipUiTWV KCU TTOTOiV (142), €7Tt TWV fipWTWV KCU. TTOTWV O.TTap^ap.ivOV%
€v6ew<; tote o-vyxpw^ ai ^cXeuei (158). It is curious that this de-
fence of the levitical code contains an allusion which is a verbal
parallel to our writer's disparaging remark here ; the author asserts
that intelligent Egyptian priests call the Jews "men of God," a
title only applicable to one who cre'/Serai rov Kara aXrjOeiav Oeov,
since all Others are avOpwiroi fipwTwv «ai ttotwv koX o-Kiirr]^, r) yap
Trao-a 8id6eo-L<; avrwi' itrl ravra Karacpevyei. rots Se Trap' rjpwv iv ov8evi
ravra AeXoyicrrai (140. 141). Libations of wine accompanied
certain levitical sacrifices {e.g. Nu 5 15 6 15 - 17 28™), but no ritual
regulations were laid down for them, and they were never offered
independently (cp. EBi. 4193, 4209). It is because the whole
question of sacrifice is now to be restated that he throws in these
disparaging comments upon the Swpd tc Kal 0u<ticu and their ac-
companiments in the older vkx\vt\. Such sacrifices were part and
parcel of a system connected with (v. 10 ) external ritual, and in con-
cluding the discussion he catches up the term with which he had
opened it : all such rites are SiKauupvara o-apKos, connected with the
sensuous side of life and therefore provisional, fie'xpi KcupoG Siop&u-
o-€0)s lmiieijjL€Ka. Here 1-mKdp^va is "prescribed," as in the descrip-
tion of workmen on strike, in Tebt. P. 26 17 (114 B.C.) iyKarakdirov-
Tas rrpi €TTiKeip.evr)v do-xoAiav. Aidpflwcns means a " reconstruction "
of religion, such as the new Siatf?^ (8 13 ) involved ; the use of the
term in Polybius, iii. 118. 1 2 (irpos ras twv 7ro\iT€vpa.Twv Siop#wo-eis),
indicates how our author could seize on it for his own purposes.
The comma might be omitted after Pair-rio-fiois, and SiKauopaTa taken
closely with jaovov : "gifts and sacrifices, which (fj.6vov kt\. in apposition) are
merely (the subject of) outward regulations for the body," iwl being taken as
cumulative (Lk 3 20 ) — "besides," etc. This gets over the difficulty that the
levitical offerings had a wider scope than food, drink, and ablutions ; but tni
is not natural in this sense here, and iirl . . . Pcltttuj/jlo'is is not a parenthetical
clause. The insertion of Kal before SiKcuw/iara (by k c B D c etc. vg hkl Chrys. ),
= "even" or "in particular" (which is the only natural sense), is pointless.
AiKaabfxaffiv (D c K L vg hkl) was an easy conformation to the previous datives,
which would logically involve ewiKeiy.tvois (as the vg implies: " et justitiis
carnis usque ad tempus correctionis impositis"), otherwise £iriKei[j.ei>a would be
extremely awkward, after dvvd/xevai, in apposition to Swpa re Kal dvaiat.
Now for the better sanctuary and especially the better sacri
fice of Christ as our dpxiep^'s (vv. 11 ' 28 ) !
120 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 11.
11 But when Christ arrived as the highpriest of the bliss that was to be, he
passed through the greater and more perfect tent which no hands had made (no
part, that is to say, of the present order), I2 not (ovM — v^ox yet) taking any b/ooa
of goats and calves but his own blood, and entered once for all into the Holy
place. He secured an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls
and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on defied persons, give them a holiness that
bears on bodily purity, 14 how much more shall (Kadapiel, logical future) the blood
of Christ, who in the spirit of the eternal offered himself as an unblemished
sacrifice to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve a living God."
This paragraph consists of two long sentences (vv. 11 - 12 , 13 - u ).
The second is an explanation of aliavlav XuTpwo-n' eupdu-ceos at the
close of the first. In the first, the sphere, the action, and the
object of the sacrifice are noted, as a parallel to vv. 6 - 7 ; but in
vv. 13 - 14 the sphere is no longer mentioned, the stress falling upon
the other two elements. The writer does not return to the
question of the sphere till vv. 21f -
Xpioros oe irapayev6\ievo<5 (v. 11 ). But Christ came on the
scene, 1 and all was changed. He arrived as dpxiepeu's, and the
author carries on the thought by an imaginative description of
him passing through the upper heavens (no hand-made, mun-
dane fore-court this !) into the innermost Presence. It is a more
detailed account of what he had meant by ?xorres dpxiepe'a u.e'ycu'
SieXrjXuGoTa tous oupavous (4 14 ). XeipoTroirj-rou, like xeipoTroiT|Ta (v. 24 ),
means " manufactured," not " fictitious " (as applied to idols or
idol-temples by the LXX and Philo). Toot' ecrnv ou returns -rfjs
KTiVews reads like the gloss of a scribe, but the writer is fond of
this phrase tovt ecrnv, and, though it adds nothing to 00 x €t P°-
ttoitjtou, it may stand. Kticus, in this sense of creation or created
order, was familiar to him (e.g. Wis 5 17 19 6 ). McMoVtcji', before
dyaQwi', was soon altered into yevo/xevcov (by B D* 161 1. 1739.
2005 vt syr Orig. Chrys.), either owing to a scribe being misled
by irapayevo/uLevos or owing to a pious feeling that fj.e\\6vTu>v here
(though not in io 1 ) was too eschatological. The aya0a were
fj.e\Aoi>Ta in a sense even for Christians, but already they had
begun to be realized ; e.g. in the XuTpucus. This full range was
still to be disclosed (2 5 13 14 ), but they were realities of which
Christians had here and now some vital experience (see on 6 5 ).
Some editors (e.g. Rendall, Nairne) take tQiv yevop-ivuv ayaOwv with what
follows, as if the writer meant to say that " Christ appeared as highpriest of
the good things which came by the greater and more perfect tabernacle (not
made with hands — that is, not of this creation)." This involves, (a) the
interpretation of oi>54 as = "not by the blood of goats and calves either," the
term carrying on irapayevd/xevos ; and (b) did. in a double sense. There is no
objection to (b), but (a) is weak ; the bliss and benefit are mediated not
through the sphere but through what Jesus does in the sphere of the eternal
<TKt)vr}. Others (e.g. Westcott, von Soden, Dods, Seeberg) take 5i& ttJs
1 Mapayev6p.evos (as Lk 12 51 , Mt 3 1 suggest) is more active than the Trecpa-
vtpuTat. uf v. 26 .
IX. 11-13.] THE NEW AND TRUE SACRIFICE 121
aKT)vr)s with Xparros, " Christ by means of the . . . sanctuary." This sense
of Sid is better than that of (a) above, and it keeps Sid the same for vv. 11
and 12 . But the context {irapayev6p.(vos . . . elarjkdtv) points to the local use
of Sid in did tti% . . . <tkt)vtis, rather than to the instrumental ; and it is no
objection that the writer immediately uses Sid in another sense (Si ai/xaros),
for this is one of his literary methods (cp. Sid with gen. and accus. in 2 1 - J
2'.'. 10 « 18. 19. 23. 24. 2B\
Continuing the description of Christ's sacrifice, he adds (v. 12 )
ouSe 8i' aiiAa-ros Tpdymv (for the People) Kal ia6<tx w> ' (f° r himself),
which according to the programme in Lv 16 the priest smeared
on the east side of the IXaarrjptov. The later Jewish procedure
is described in the Mishna tractate Joma, but our author simply
draws upon the LXX text, though (like Aquila and Symmachus)
he uses yjovytov instead of x^ a P wv - Aid is graphically used in
8id tou IStou aifim-os, as in 8i' aip.a-ros Tpdywi' ica! p.daxwi', but the
idea is the self-sacrifice, the surrender of his own life, in virtue
of which 1 he redeemed his People, the al/xa or sacrifice being
redemptive as it was his. The single sacrifice had eternal value,
owing to his personality. The term ecfxuraS, a stronger form of
aVa£, which is unknown to the LXX, is reserved by our author
for the sacrifice of Jesus, which he now describes as issuing in
a XvVpwcrts — an archaic religious term which he never uses else-
where ; it is practically the same as d-rroXuTpwais (v. 15 ), but he
puts into it a much deeper meaning than the LXX or than Luke
(i 68 2 38 ), the only other NT writer who employs the term.
Though he avoids the verb, his meaning is reallythat of i P i 18
(i\vrpw6rjTe Tifxita alfxan <I)S d/xvov d/xwfxov Kal do~7riA.ov Xpto"Tot')
or ot Ti 2 1 * (os ISw/c€v eavTOV {nrep rjfxwv, Lva \vt paxrrjT at Tjp.a.<s airo
7rdo"77$ dvofxia^ koX KaOapicrrj eavrw Xaov irepiovaiov).
In this compressed phrase, aluviov Xvrpuxriv cvpdjxcvo?, (a) aluvlav
offers the only instance of alwvios being modified in this epistle, (b) Evpd-
ixevos, in the sense of Dion. Hal. Ant. v. 293 (outs Sia\\ayds evparo tois
dvSpdav Kal KadoSov), and Jos. Ant. i. 19. I (ird-n-irov S6£av aperies fj.eyd\i]s
evpdpievov), is a participle (for its form, 2 cp. Moulton, i. p. 51), which, though
middle, is not meant to suggest any personal effort like "by himself," much
less " for himself" ; the middle in Hellenistic Greek had come to mean what
the active meant. What he secured, he secured for us (cp. Aelian, Var. Hist.
iii. 17, koX avToh aorTtjp'iav evpavro). The aorist has not a past sense ; it
either means "to secure" (like evpdfievoi in 4 Mac 3 13 and iiri<TK€\pd/j.et'oi in
2 Mac II 36 ), after a verb of motion (cp. Ac 25 13 ), or "securing" (by what
grammarians call "coincident action").
The last three words of v. 12 are now (vv. 13 * 14 ) explained by
an a fortiori argument. Why was Christ's redemption eternal?
What gave it this absolute character and final force ? In v. 13
1 The Sid here as in Sia Trvevfiaro^ aiuvtov suggest the state in which a
certain thing is done, and inferentially the use becomes instrumental, as we
say, "he came in power."
2 The Attic form evpo/j.fi'os is preferred by D* 226. 436. 920.
122 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 13.
Tpdytav Kdi raupoiv reverses the order in io 4 , and ravpiav is now
substituted for p.6(T\wv. The former led to ravpoiv kcu rpdywv
being read (by the KLP group, Athanasius, Cyril, etc.), but
"the blood of goats and bulls" was a biblical generalization
(Ps 50 13 , Is i 11 ), chosen here as a literary variation, perhaps for
the sake of the alliteration, though some editors see in ravptav a
subtle, deliberate antithesis to the feminine SdfAaXis. According
to the directions of Nu io 9f - a red cow was slaughtered and then
burned ; the ashes (f\ ctttooos ttjs SajidXcws) were mixed with fresh
water and sprinkled upon any worshipper who had touched a
dead body and thus incurred ceremonial impurity, contact with
the dead being regarded as a disqualification for intercourse with
men or God (see above on 6 1 ). This mixture was called v&o>p
pavTiv/xov. The rite supplies the metaphors of the argument in
vv. 14 - 15 ; it was one of the ablutions (v. 10 ) which restored the
contaminated person (tous K€Koivoip.ewou<s) to the worshipping
community of the Lord. The cow is described as ajxcofAoc, the
purified person as icaGapos ; but our author goes ouside the LXX
for Ke/coivwpe'vow?, and even pavri^uv is rare in the LXX. " The
red colour of the cow and the scarlet cloth burnt on the pyre
with the aromatic woods, suggest the colour of blood ; the aro-
matic woods are also probably connected with primitive ideas of
the cathartic value of odours such as they produce" (R. A. S.
Macalister in ERE. xi. 36a). The lustration had no connexion
whatever with atonement-day, and it was only in later rabbinic
tradition that it was associated with the functions of the high-
priest. According to Pesikta 40a, a pagan inquirer once pointed
out to Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai the superstitious character of
such rites. His disciples considered his reply unsatisfactory,
and afterwards pressed him to explain to them the meaning of
the ashes and the sprinkling, but all he could say was that it had
been appointed by the Holy One, and that men must not
inquire into His reasons (cp. Bacher's Agada d. Pal. Amoraer,
i. 556 ; Agada der Tannaiten 2 , i. 37, 38). Our author does not go
into details, like the author of Ep. Barnabas (8), who allegorizes
the ritual freely in the light of the Jewish tradition ; he merely
points out that, according to the bible, the rite, like the similar
rite of blood on atonement-day, restored the worshipper to out-
ward communion with God. 'Ayidtci means this and no more.
The removal of the religious tabu upon persons contaminated by contact
with the dead was familiar to non-Jews. The writer goes back to the OT
for his illustration, but it would be quite intelligible to his Gentile Christian
readers (cp. Marett's The Evolution of Religion, pp. 1 15 f. ; ERE. iv. 434,
x. 456, 483, 485, 501), in a world where physical contact with the dead was
a filaa/xa.. Philo's exposition (de spec, legibus, i. 7re/n dvbvrutv, I f. ) of the rite.
is that the primary concern is for the purity of the soul ; the attention
needed for securing that the victim is d/xu/j-ov, or, as he says, 7rai'Te\iDs
IX. 13, 14. J THE BLOOD OF CHRIST 1 23
fiov/xwv dfiiroxov, is a figurative expression for moral sensitiveness on the part
of the worshipper ; it is a regulation really intended for rational beings. Ov
rwv dvo/xivuiv (ppovrli iffTiv . . . dXXct rwv Ovbvrwv, iva irepi firjdiv ir&Oos
Kripaivwui. The bodily cleansing is only secondary, and even this he ingeni-
ously allegorizes into a demand for self-knowledge, since the water and ashes
should remind us how worthless our natures are, and knowledge of this kind
is a wholesome purge for conceit ! Thus, according to Philo, the rite did
purge soul as well as body : avayKauov tous pLtWovras (poirav els rb Upbv iiri
fierovaig. dvalas to tc crw/xa (paidpvvecfdai Kai ttjv i/'i'xV ^P T °v cw^aros Our
author does not share this favourable view (cp. Seeberg's Der Tod Chrisli,
PP- 53 '■ J O- Schmitz's Die Opferanschauung des spdteren Judentums, pp.
281 f. ). He would not have denied that the levitical cultus aimed at spiritual
good ; what he did deny was that it attained its end. Till a perfect sacrifice
was offered, such an end was unattainable. The levitical cultus " provided
a ritual cleansing for the community, a cleansing which, for devout minds that
could penetrate beneath the letter to the spirit, must have often meant a sense
of restoration to God's community. But at best the machinery was cumbrous :
at best the pathway into God's presence was dimly lighted" (H. A. A.
Kennedy, The Theology of the Epistles, p. 213).
Our author does not explain how the blood of goats and
bulls could free the worshiper from ceremonial impurity ; the
cathartic efficacy of blood is assumed. From the comparative
study of religion we know now that this belief was due to the
notion that "the animal that has been consecrated by contact
with the altar becomes charged with a divine potency, and its
sacred blood, poured over the impure man, absorbs and disperses
his impurity" (Marett, The Evolution of Religion, p. 121). But
in IIpos 'Eftpaiovs, (a) though the blood of goats and bulls is
applied to the people as well as to the altar, and is regarded as
atoning (see below), the writer offers no rationale of sacrifice.
Xoj/ks at^,aT€«x^o-tas ov ytverai dcpecris. He does not argue, he takes
for granted, that access to God involves sacrifice, i.e. blood shed.
(f>) He uses the rite of Nu 19 to suggest the cathartic process,
the point of this lustration being the use of " water made holy
by being mingled with the ashes of the heifer that had been
burnt." "The final point is reached," no doubt (Marett, op. cit.
123), "when it is realized that the blood of bulls and goats
cannot wash away sin, that nothing external can defile the heart
or soul, but only evil thoughts and evil will." Yet our writer
insists that even this inward defilement requires a sacrifice, the
sacrifice of Christ's blood. This is now (v. 14 ) urged in the phrase
eauToi/ -nawi\v^Ks.v, where we at last see what was intended by
TTpoo-tptpew ti in 8 3 . We are not to think of the risen or ascended
Christ presenting himself to God, but of his giving himself up
to die as a sacrifice. The blood of Christ means his life given
up for the sake of men. He did die, but it was a voluntary
death — not the slaughter of an unconscious, reluctant victim ;
and he who died lives. More than that, he lives with the power
of that death or sacrifice. This profound thought is further
124 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 14.
developed by (a) the term afiwfioi/, which is in apposition to
kavTov ; and (b) by 8ia nveufAaTOS cuwiaou, which goes with Trpoarj-
veynev. (a) Paul calls Christians, or calls them to be, ap.wp.oi ;
but our writer, like the author of i P (i 19 )» calls Christ apwp.0%
as a victim. It is a poetic synonym for apuyprjTos, taken over as
the technical term (LXX) for the unblemished (DID) animals
which alone could be employed in sacrifice ; here it denotes the
stainless personality, the sinless nature which rendered the self-
sacrifice of Jesus eternally valid. Then (b) the pregnant phrase
Sid irv€VfiaTO'i aiwvtou, which qualifies zclvtov -irpoa-qveyKev, means
that this sacrifice was offered in the realm or order of the inward
spirit, not of the outward and material ; it was no StKatw/Aa
a-apKos, but carried out Sid irvev fiaTos, i.e. in, or in virtue of, his
spiritual nature. What the author had called £u)t) aKardAvTos
(7 16 ) he now calls weujia alamos. The sacrificial blood had a
mystical efficacy; it resulted in an eternal XuTpw<n$ because it
operated in an eternal order of spirit, the sacrifice of Jesus
purifying the inner personality (t^v o-wei'S^o-ii/) because it was the
action of a personality, and of a sinless personality which
belonged by nature to the order of spirit or eternity. Christ
was both priest and victim ; as Son of God he was eternal and
spiritual, unlike mortal highpriests (7 16 ), and, on the other side,
unlike a mortal victim. The implication (which underlies all
the epistle) is that even in his earthly life Jesus possessed eternal
life. Hence what took place in time upon the cross, the writer
means, took place really in the eternal, absolute order. Christ
sacrificed himself e<}>dTra£, and the single sacrifice needed no
repetition, since it possessed absolute, eternal value as the action
of One who belonged to the eternal order. He died — he had
to die — but only once (q 15 -io 18 ), for his sacrifice, by its eternal
significance, accomplished at a stroke what no amount of animal
sacrifices could have secured, viz. the forgiveness of sins. It is
as trivial to exhaust the meaning of ireeujAa alamor in a contrast
with the animal sacrifices of the levitical cultus as it is irrele-
vant to drag in the dogma of the trinity. Aiwetou closely
describes irceufjiaTos (hence it has no article). What is in the
writer's mind is the truth that what Jesus did by dying can never
be exhausted or transcended. His sacrifice, like his 8ia0rJKT],
like the AuVpcoo-is or o-wTrjpia which he secures, is alwi'ios or
lasting, because it is at the heart of things. It was because Jesus
was what he was by nature that his sacrifice had such final value;
its atoning significance lay in his vital connexion with the realm
of absolute realities ; it embodied all that his divine personality
meant for men in relation to God. In short, his self-sacrifice
"was something beyond which nothing could be, or could be
conceived to be, as a response to God's mind and requirement.
IX. 14.] THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST 1 25
in relation to sin . . . an intelligent and loving response to the
holy and gracious will of God, and to the terrible situation of
man" (Denney, The Death of Christ, p. 228).
A later parallel from rabbinic religion occurs in the Midrash Tehillim on
Ps 31 : " formerly you were redeemed with flesh and blood, which to-day is
and to-morrow is buried ; wherefore your redemption was temporal (nyc nSi*o).
But now I will redeem you by myself, who live and remain for ever ; where-
fore your redemption will be eternal redemption (c'nj; nSiNJ, cp. Is 45 17 )."
One or two minor textual items may be noted in v. 14 .
irvei5|i.a.Tos] J. J. Reiske's conjecture ayi>ev/j.aTos (purity) is singularly
prosaic. Alwviov (n* A B D c K L syr v e hkl arm Ath) is altered into the con-
ventional aylov by N° D* P 35. 88. 206. 326. 547, etc. lat boh Chrys. Cyril.
Liturgical usage altered vjxuiv into r^fiCiv (A D* P 5. 38. 218. 241. 256. 263.
378. 506. 1319. 1831. 1836*. 1912. 2004. 2127 vt syr v ^ boh Cyr.), and, to
£uvti, teal aXridivql (a gloss from I Th i 9 ) is added in A P 104 boh Chrys. etc.
In the closing words of v. 14 KaGapiei is a form which is rare
(Mt 3 12 , Ja 4 8 ?) in the NT, so rare that KaOaptcrei is read here
by 206. 22 t. 1831 Did. Ath. It is a Hellenistic verb, used in
the inscriptions (with diro) exactly in the ceremonial sense under-
lying the metaphor of this passage (Deissmann, Bible Studies,
2i6f.). The cleansing of the conscience (cp. v. 9 ) is diro vtKp&v
epywf, from far more serious flaws and stains than ceremonial
pollution by contact with a corpse (see above, and in 6 1 ). As
Dods puts it, "a pause might be made before e/rywv, from dead —
(not bodies but) works." The object is els to Xcrrpeueiv 0ew £gWti.
The writer uses the sacerdotal term (8 5 ) here as in io 2 and 12 28 ,
probably like Paul in a general sense ; if he thought of Chris-
tians as priests, i.e. as possessing the right of access to God, he
never says so. Religion for him is access to God, and ritual
metaphors are freely used to express the thought. When others
would say " fellowship," he says " worship." It is fundamental
for him that forgiveness is essential to such fellowship, and for-
giveness is what is meant by " purifying the conscience." As
absolute forgiveness was the boon of the new SiadrJKr] (8 12 ),
our author now proceeds (vv. 15f -) to show how Christ's sacrifice
was necessary and efficacious under that 8ia0f|KT]. A sacrifice,
involving death, is essential to any SiaOrJKr) : this principle,
which applies to the new SkxOtjkt] (v. 15 ), is illustrated first
generally (vv. 16 - 17 ) and then specifically, with reference to the
former SiaG^KT] (vv. 18 " 22 ).
15 He mediates a new covenant for this reason, that those who have been
called may obtain the eternal inheritances they have been promised, now that a
death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions involved in
the first covenant. 16 Thus in the case of a will, the death of the testator must
be announced. 17 A will only holds in cases of death, it is never valid so long
as the testator is alive. 18 Hetice even the first (17 irpd>TT], sc. SiadrjKT] as in 9 1 )
covenant of God's will was not inaugurated apart from blood; 19 for after
JMoses had announced every command in the Law to all the people, he took the
126 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 15
blood of calves and goats, together with water, scarlet wool and hyssop, sprinkl-
ing the book and all the people, and saying, 20 " This is the blood of that
covenant which is God's command for you." 21 He even {koX . . . Si, only
here in Heb. ) sprinkled with blood the tent and all the utensils of worship in
the same way. 22 In fact, one might almost say that by Law everything is
cleansed with blood. No blood shed no remission of sins !
The writer thus weaves together the idea of the new SiaGi^
(9 15 echoes 8 6 ) and the idea of sacrifice which he has just been
developing. In v. 15 81a touto carries a forward reference (" now
this is why Christ mediates a new 8ia0r)icr|, oiru? ktX."), as, e.g.,
in Xen. Cyrop. ii. 1. 21, 01 crvp.p.ayoi ovSe 6Y cv aAAo TpifftovTai rj
07rws (xaxovvrai vTrep twv TpetpovTuiv. As the climax of the pro-
mises in the new §ia6t)Kr) is pardon (8 12 ), so here its purpose is
described as d-n-oXuTpcocn?, which obviously is equivalent to full
forgiveness (Eph 1 ' rrjv airoXxiTpwcrtv Sid tov at/xaros avrov, rrjv
acpecrLV twv TrapaTrTO)p.a.Twv). 'ATroXuTpwcnv twv . . . irapa(3d<Tewc is
like Ka.6apLcrp.6v twv d/iaprtwv in i 3 . But pardon is only the
means to fellowship, and the full scope of what has been pro-
mised is still to be realized. Yet it is now certain ; the " bliss to
be " is an eternal K\-qpovop.Ca, assured by Christ. Note that the
em in eiri ty> irpajTT] 8ia0r)Kfl is not exactly temporal = " under,"
i.e. during the period of (cp. cirl o-ufTeXeta twv alwvwv in v. 213 ), but
causal. The transgressions, which had arisen " in connexion
with " the first S<.a0r/K>7, like unbelief and disobedience, are
conceived as having taken their place among men ; they are the
standing temptations of life towards God. The writer does not
say, with Paul, that sin became guilt in view of the law, but
this is near to his meaning ; with the first h)iadr]K-q sins started,
the sins that haunt the People. They are removed, for the
penitent, by the atoning death of Jesus, so that the People are
now unencumbered. There is a similar thought in Ac 1388.88
where Paul tells some Jews that through Jesus Christ vplv d<£eo-is
ap.apTiwv KaTayyeXXerai, kou atro TravTwv wv ovk rjbvvrjOrjTt iv vop.w
Mwvcrccos 8iKaiw8r]vai, iv tovtw 7rd? 6 iriarTtvwv SiKaiovTai. For the
sake of emphasis, ttji' eTrayyeXiai/ is thrown forward, away from
KXTipoyofjuas, like QdvaTov in the next verse.
'ATroXvTpiooas, which in 1 1 38 is used in its non-technical sense of " release "
from death (at the cost of some unworthy compliance), is used here in its LXX
religious sense of a redemption which costs much, which can only be had at
the cost of sacrifice. The primitive idea of " ransom " had already begun to
fade out of it (cp. Dn 4 s2 ; Philo, quod omnis probus, 17), leaving " liberation"
at some cost as the predominant idea (so in Clem. Alex. Strom vii. 56).
Here it is a synonym for XvTpwcris (v. 12 ), or as Theophylact put it, for
deliverance. But its reference is not eschatological ; the retrospective refer-
ence is uppermost.
For the first and only time he employs 01 K€K\r|p;eVoi to
describe those whom he had already hailed as /cXr}creto<; iirovpaviov
IX. 15, 16.] WILL AND COVENANT 1 27
/xcVoxoi (3 1 ). To be " called " was indispensable to receiving
God's boon (n 8 ), so that KeKXrj/xevoL here is an appropriate term
for those who are no longer hampered by any obstacles of an
inadequate pardon. The k^kXtju^oi are the faithful People ;
" the objects of redemption are united in one category, for the
One and Only Sacrifice is not of the sphere of time " (Wickham).
It is not an aoristic perfect ( = kAt^i'tcs), as if the K^KX-q^ivoi
were simply those under the old hia.6rjK.ri, though these are in-
cluded, for the sacrificial death of Jesus has a retrospective value ;
it clears off the accumulated offences of the past. The writer
does not work out this, any more than Paul does in Ro 3 25f - ; but
it may be implied in n 40 12 23 (see below), where the "perfecting"
of the older believers is connected with the atonement. How-
ever, the special point here of Oam-rou . . . -jrapapdcreww is that the
death which inaugurates the new hiad-qKrj deals effectively with the
hindrances left by the former BiadrjKrj. Not that this is its ex-
clusive function. That the death inaugurates an order of grace
in which forgiveness is still required and bestowed, is taken for
granted (e.g. 4 16 ) ; but the «XT]poK)fjua, which from the beginning
has been held out to the People of God, has only become attain-
able since the sacrifice of Jesus, and therefore (a) his death
avails even for those who in the past hoped for it, yet could not
obtain it, and also (b) deals with the 7rapa/3ao-€is set up by the
older SiaOrJKr] among men.
But how was a death necessary to a SiadrjKrj? The answer
is given in v. 16f - through a characteristic play on the term. In
oirou yap (sc. £<ttl) SiaGi^KY) ktX. he uses 8ia6r]Krj as equivalent to
" will " or testamentary disposition, playing effectively upon the
double sense of the term, as Paul had already done in Gal 3 15f \
The point of his illustration (vv. 16 - 17 ) depends upon this; f3e|3cua
and lcry^e.1 are purposely used in a juristic sense, applicable to
wills as well as to laws, and 6 SiaOep-eeos is the technical term for
" testator." The illustration has its defects, but only when it is
pressed beyond what the writer means to imply. A will does
not come into force during the lifetime of the testator, and yet
Jesus was living ! True, but he had died, and died inaugurating
a 8ia0r|KT) in words which the writer has in mind (v. 20 ) ; indeed,
according to one tradition he had spoken of himself figuratively
as assigning rights to his disciples (*dya) SiaTLde/xat. v/ju.v, Lk 2 2 29 ).
The slight incongruity in this illustration is not more than that
involved in making Jesus both priest and victim. It is a curious
equivoque, this double use of 8ia6rji<r}, the common idea of
both meanings being that benefits are " disponed," and that the
8ia6r]Kr] only takes effect after a death. The continuity of argu-
ment is less obvious in English, where no single word conveys
the different nuances which ZiaOrfK-q bore for Greek readers.
128 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 16, 17.
Hence in v. 18 some periphrasis like " the first covenant of God's
will " is desirable.
That 8ia9iiKT) in vv. 16, 17 is equivalent to "testamentary disposition," is
essential to the argument. No natural interpretation of vv. 16 " 20 is possible,
when dtadriKT] is understood rigidly either as " covenant " or as " will." The
classical juristic sense is richly illustrated in the papyri and contemporary
Hellenistic Greek, while the "covenant" meaning prevails throughout the
LXX ; but Philo had already used it in both senses, and here the juristic sense
of K\7]povofila (v. 15 ) paved the way for the juristic sense which v. 17 demands.
The linguistic materials are collected, with a variety of interpretations, by
Norton in A Lexicographical and Historical Study of Aiad-qicr) (Chicago,
1908), Behm (Der Begriff AiadrjKT) itn Neuen Testament, Naumburg, 1912),
Lohmeyer (Aiadr)K7i : ein Beitrag ztir Erkldrung des Neutestametitlichen
Begriffs, Leipzig, 1913), and G. Vos in Princeton Theological Review
(1915. pp- s 8 7 f - ; 1916. pp- J - 61 ).
In v. 16 4>e'peo-0ai is "announced," almost in the sense of
" proved " (as often in Greek) ; in v. 17 yA\ ttotc (cp. on ovttw in 2 8 )
is not equivalent to juiiru (nondum, vg) but simply means
" never " (non unquam), as, e.g., in Eurip. Hipp. 823, ware /x^ttotc
eKTTvevcrai irdXiv, fxv here following the causal particle «ret, like
on in Jn 3 18 ; it had begun to displace oi in later Greek.
Moulton quotes BGU. 530 (i A.D.), fi€fx<f>erai ere e7r(e)t fj.r) avri-
•ypafas airrj, and Radermacher (171) suggests that the change
was sometimes due to a desire of avoiding the hiatus. 'lax""
has the same force as in Gal 5 6 , cp. Tebt. P. 286 7 (ii a.d.) vow
aSiKos [ou]8ev turyvei. Some needless difficulties have been felt
with regard to the construction of the whole sentence. Thus
(a) eirel . . . 8ia06p.efos might be a question, it is urged : " For
is it ever valid so long as the testator is alive?" In Jn 7 26
IxrjTroTe. is so used interrogatively, but there it opens the sen-
tence. This construction goes back to the Greek fathers
Oecumenius and Theophylact ; possibly it was due to the
feeling that prjiroTe could not be used in a statement like this.
(t?) Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 113) declares that iroTe is a
corruption of totc (n from T, a stroke being added by accident),
and that he found totc " ev 7raXaiots avrtypa^ots." Two old
MSS (N* D*) do happen to preserve this reading, which is in
reality a corruption of irort.
Why, it may be asked, finally, does not the writer refer
outright to the new hiaQiJKr) as inaugurated at the last supper?
The reason is plain. Here as throughout the epistle he ignores
the passover or eucharist. As a non-sacerdotal feast, the pass-
over would not have suited his argument. Every Israelite was his
own priest then, as Philo remarks {De Decalogo, 30, Tracrxa . . .
iv 7] Ovovcri 7rav8r//x€i avrlLv £/cao"TOS Tors icpei? clvtCjv ovk avafxivovTv;,
Uf)wavv7]v tov vo/xov \apicrafi.ivov t<3 Wvu iravri Kara fxiav rjfxepav
ktX.). Hence the absence of a passover ritual from the entire
IX. 17-19.] THE SINAI COVENANT 1 29
argument of the epistle, and also perhaps his failure to employ
it here, where it would have been extremely apt.
Reverting now to the other and biblical sense of SiaflrjicY], the
writer (vv. 18f ) recalls how the SiaOyKr) at Sinai was inaugurated
with blood. "oQev — since 8ia6rJKr] and 66.vo.to>; are correlative —
ouSe t| TrpcuTY] (sc. SiaOrJKrj) X^P^S aijxoTOS efKeKCucio-TCu (the verb
here and in io 20 being used in its ordinary LXX sense, e.g., 1 K
II 14 eyKaivi'crco/xev 6K€t tt]v /SacriAeiaj/, I Mac 4 36 avafiwfAev KaOapiaaL
to. ayta ko.1 ivKaivio-ai). This fresh illustration of death or blood
being required in order to inaugurate a 8ia$rJKr], is taken from the
story in Ex 24 3f -, but he treats it with characteristic freedom.
Five points may be noted, (i) He inserts 1 to atua . . . tuv
rpdyjiv, a slip which was conscientiously corrected by a number
of MSS which omitted k<ji tw rpdyuv (N c K L * 5. 181. 203.
242. 487. 489. 506. 623. 794. 917. 1311. 1319. 1739. 1827. 1836.
1845. 1898. 2143) as well as by syr Origen and Chrysostom.
Moses merely had p.oo-xapia slaughtered ; our author adds goats,
perhaps because the full phrase had become common for OT
sacrifices (see on v. 13 ). (ii) He inserts p.eTa u'Sa-ros *a! epi'ou
KOKKikou Kal uo-o-wttou, as these were associated in his mind with
the general ritual of sprinkling; water, hyssop, and scarlet
thread (kokkivoi'), for example, he remembered from the de-
scription of another part of the ritual in Nu 19. The water was
used to dilute the blood ; and stems of a small wall plant called
" hyssop " were tied with scarlet wool (KeicXwo-p.eVoi' kokki^oi') to
form a sprinkler in the rite of cleansing a leper (Lv i4 6f ), or for
sprinkling blood (Ex 12 22 ). But of this wisp or bunch there is
not a word in Ex 24 3f \ (iii) Nor is it said in the OT that
Moses sprinkled 2 au-ro t6 f3i|3\iot'. He simply splashed half of
the blood 7rpo? to Ovo-iao-Trjpiov, koI XafSoiv to /?t/3Atov {i.e. the scroll
containing the primitive code) ttjs &ia0T)KT|s, read it aloud to the
people, who promised obedience ; whereupon Xafiwv 8e Mwvo-^s
to ai/xa KaT€o-Ki8acrev tov Xaov kol enrev ktX.. An ingenious but
impracticable attempt to correct this error is to take auTo tc to
PipXtor with \af3wy, but the tc goes with the next Kal Train-a rbv
Xaoi'. The fiifiXiov may have been included, since as a human
product, for all its divine contents, it was considered to require
cleansing ; in which case the mention of it would lead up to v. 21 ,
and o.ut6 tc t6 flifiXlov might be rendered "the book itself."
This intensive use of airos occurs just below in auTa. rd eiroupdVia,
But avros may be, according to the usage of Hellenistic Greek,
1 In Triors ivroKris Kara rbv (om. N* K P) v6/j.ov ("lecto omni mandato
legis," vg) the Kara means " throughout " rather than "by."
2 For KarecTK^daaev he substitutes ippavriaev, from pavTifa, which is com-
paratively rare in the LXX (Lv 6 27 , 2 K o. 33 . Ps 51 7 , Aquila and Symm. in
Is 63 s , Aquila and Theodotion in Is 52 1B ).
9
1 30 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 19-22
unemphatic, as, e.g., in n 11 koX airrj %dppa, Jn 2 24 avTos Se 6
'I^o-oOs. (iv) In quoting the LXX l&ov to ai/z.a tt;s 8ia6r]Kr]<; rj<s
SieOero Kvpios 7rpos vfAas ( = vplv), he changes iSou into tovto
(possibly a reminiscence of the synoptic tradition in Mk 14 22 ),
SUdero into ereTciXaTo (after ci/toXtjs in v. 19 ; but the phrase
occurs elsewhere, though with the dative, e.g. Jos 23 16 ), and
Kupios wpos v/xas into irpos rjp.as 6 9eos. This is a minor altera-
tion. It is more significant that, (v) following a later Jewish
tradition, which reappears in Josephus (Ant. iii. 8. 6 [Moses
cleansed Aaron and his sons] rrjv tc o-Krjvrjv ko.1 to. 7r€pi air-qv
(TK€vr] i\aiu> tc TrpoOvfiiw/xevio Ka$ii)<; enrov, kcli tw cupari rtov Tavpwv
*cai KpiZ>v <T<payevT(i>v kt\.), he makes Moses use blood to sprinkle
the cncTjvT] and all tcI aKeoTj ttjs XeiToupyias (a phrase from 1 Ch 9 28 ).
The account of Ex 4o 9 - 10 mentions oil only ; Josephus adds
blood, because the tradition he followed fused the oil-dedication
of the a-K-qvrj in Ex 4o 9, 10 with the (oil) sprinkling at the con-
secration of the priests (Lv 8 10f -), which was followed by a blood-
sprinkling of the altar alone. Philo had previously combined
the oil-dedication of the a-KTjvrj with the consecration of the
priests (vit. Mos. iii. 17); but he, too, is careful to confine any
blood-sprinkling to the altar. Our author, with his predilection
for blood as a cathartic, omits the oil altogether, and extends
the blood to everything.
This second illustration (vv. 18f -) is not quite parallel to the
first ; the death in the one case is of a human being in the course
of nature, in the other case of animals slaughtered. But atfia
and Gd^a-ros were correlative terms for the writer. The vital
necessity of alp.a in this connexion is reiterated in the summary
of v. 22 . IxeSoe, he begins — for there were exceptions to the rule
that atonement for sins needed an animal sacrifice (e.g. Lv 5 11 " 13 ,
where a poverty-stricken offender could get remission by present-
ing a handful of flour, and Nu 3i 22f -, where certain articles, spoils
of war, are purified by fire or water). But the general rule was
that Trdin-a, i.e. everything connected with the ritual and every
worshipper, priest, or layman, had to be ceremonially purified by
means of blood (Ka0api£eTcu as the result of ippimtrev). The
Greek readers of the epistle would be familiar with the similar
rite of atpacnmv tovs /?a)/xous (Theokr. Epigr. i. 5, etc.). Finally,
he sums up the position under the first 8ia6r]Kr} by coining a term
alfjiaTeKxuaia (from eKx vcrts olp.aTo<i, i K 18 28 etc.) for the shedding
of an animal victim's blood in sacrifice ; x w pis afjioT6KX«<rios ou
yifeTai a^eais, i.e. even the limited pardon, in the shape of
"cleansing," which was possible under the old order. "A^eo-is
here as in Mk 3 129 has no genitive following, but the sense is
indubitable, in view of io 18 ottou 8e a^eais tou'tui/ (i.e. of sins).
The latter passage voices a feeling which seems to contradict the
IX. 22.] THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST 131
possibility of any forgiveness prior to the sacrifice of Christ (cp.
9*5 io 4f ), but the writer knew from his bible that there had
been an a</>€o-i9 under the old regime as the result of animal
sacrifice ; Kal e^iXdaerai Trepl (or irepl t»Js a/xaprias) avrov 6 Upcv's
. . . koX cupetfijo-eTcu avrw was the formula (cp. Lv 5 10, 16 - 18 etc.).
The underlying principle of the argument is practically (cp.
Introd., p. xlii) that laid down in the Jewish tract Joma v. 1
("there is no expiation except by blood"), which quotes Lv 17 11 ,
a text known to the writer of Hebrews in this form : rj yap \\/vxq
Trda~rj<; aapKos alp.a avrov eari'v, Kal eya> Se'ScoKa avro vplv liri tov
6vcrLao~T7]piov ££i\do~Keo-6ai Trtpl tujv \pv)(piv vp.S)v" to yap al/xa avTOu
dvTt T17S ifsvxr}<> e|iXdo-£rat. Blood as food is prohibited, since
blood contains the vital principle ; as there is a mysterious potency
in it, which is to be reserved for rites of purification and expiation,
by virtue of the life in it, this fluid is efficacious as an atonement.
The Greek version would readily suggest to a reader like our
author that the piacular efficacy of at/m was valid universally,
and that the atjxa or sacrificial death of Christ was required in
order that human sin might be removed. Why such a sacrifice,
why sacrifice at all, was essential, he did not ask. It was com-
manded by God in the bible ; that was sufficient for him. The
vital point for him was that, under this category of sacrifice, the
alp.a of Christ superseded all previous arrangements for securing
pardon.
After the swift aside of v. 22 , the writer now pictures the
appearance of Christ in the perfect sanctuary of heaven with the
perfect sacrifice (vv. 25f -) which, being perfect or absolute, needs
no repetition.
28 Now, while the copies of the heavenly things had (avdyicr], sc. ty or
iarlv) to be cleansed with sacrifices like these, the heavenly things themselves
required nobler sacrifices. 24 For Christ has not entered a holy place which
human hands have made (a mere type of the reality !) ; he has entered heaven
itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it (sc.
eicrrjXdev) to offer himself repeatedly, like the highpriest entering the holy place
every year with blood that was not his own : 2S for in that case he would have
had to suffer repeatedly ever since the world was founded. Nay, once for all,
at the end of the world, he has appeared with his self-sacrifice to abolish sin.
27 And just as it is appointed for men to die once and after that to be judged,
28 so Christ, after being once sacrificed to bear the sins of many, will appear
again, not to deal with sin, but for the saving of those who look out for him.
The higher o-K-qv-q requires a nobler kind of sacrifice than its
material copy on earth (v. 23 ). 1 This would be intelligible enough ;
1 For av&yKTj . . . KaOapl^eadai an early variant was ivdyKy . . . 1ca6a.pl-
ferai (D* 424** Origen), which Blass adopts. But our author prefers the
nominative (v. 16 ) to the dative, and Kadapiferai is no more than a conforma-
tion to the Kadapi^erai of v. 23 . The re, which some cursives (33. 1245. 2005)
substitute for 5^ between airrd and to, iirovpavia, is due to alliteration.
132 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 23-26
but when the writer pushes the analogy so far as to suggest that
the sacrifice of Christ had, among other effects, to purify heaven
itself, the idea becomes almost fantastic. The nearest parallel to
this notion occurs in Col i 20 ; but the idea here is really unique,
as though the constant work of forgiving sinners in the upper
crKTjvr) rendered even that in some sense defiled. The slight
touch of disparagement in toutois ( = tois akoyois, Theodoret)
may be conveyed by "like these " or "such," and (Wuus is the
plural of category (like veKpois in v. 17 ). After this passing lapse
into the prosaic, the writer quickly recovers himself in a passage
of high insight (vv. 24£ ) upon the nobler sacrifice of Jesus. In-
deed, even as he compares it with the levitical sacrifices, its
incomparable power becomes more and more evident. In v. 24
( = vv. 1112 ) by dfTiTUTra twc aX^Ou/we he means a counterpart
(avTiTvirov in reverse sense in 1 P 3 21 ) of reality (cp. 8 2 ), avTcruira
being a synonym here for viroSeiyfxaTa, literally = "answering to
the twos" which was shown to Moses (cp. 2 Clem. 14 3 ouSeis ovv
to avTLTVTrov cpOeipas to avQzvTiKov [A€Ta\rjij/eTai). Christ has
entered the heavenly sphere v\iv (emphatic, "now at last "= i 2 )
i\i.<\>av\.<j§r\vai ktX. In efJK^aciaOTJk'ai tw irpoo-cjirw tou 0eou (cp. Ps
42 3 6(f>0r}o-ofjLai. t<3 Trpocruiiru tov deov) we have i/xcpavi^eiv used in
its Johannine sense (i4 21 - 22 ), though passively as in Wis i 2
(ifxcpaviltTai rots /xr/ irio~Ttvovo-iv auTw). But the appearance is
before God on behalf of men, and the meaning is brought out in
7 26 io 12f \ Christ's sacrifice, it is held, provides men with a
close and continuous access to God such as no cultus could
effect ; it is of absolute value, and therefore need not be re-
peated (vv. 25 - 26 ), as the levitical sacrifices had to be. OuV Xva.
TroXXdKis irpoo-^e'pT] eauTof] What is meant precisely by irpoo~<p£peiv
iavTov here (as in v. 14 ) is shown by iraGeiK in v. 26 . "There is
no difference between entering in and offering. The act of
entering in and offering is one highpriestly act" (A. B. Davidson),
and irpoa-cpiptiv kavTov is inseparably connected with the suffering
of death upon the cross. The contrast between his self-sacrifice
and the highpriest entering with aip-an dXXoTpt'w (as opposed to
181'w, v. 12 ) is thrown in, as a reminiscence of vv. 7f -, but the writer
does not dwell on this ; it is the aira£ (cp. v. 12 and 1 P 3 18 Xptoros
vLTra£ irepl ajxapTidv a-rredavev) which engrosses his mind in v. 26 , eirei
(" alioquin," vg) I'Sei (the aV being omitted as, e.g., in 1 Co 5 10
€7T€t (i^eiAeTc . . . i£ekdelv) ktX. According to his outlook, there
would be no time to repeat Christ's incarnation and sacrifice
before the end of the world, for that was imminent ; hence he
uses the past, not the future, for his reductio ad absurdum argu-
ment. If Christ's sacrifice had not been of absolute, final value,
i.e. if it had merely availed for a brief time, as a temporary
provision, it would have had to be done over and over again in
IX. 26, 27.] THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST 1 33
previous ages, since from the first sinful man has needed sacrifice j
whereas the only time he was seen on earth was once, late in the
evening of the world. It is implied that Christ as the Son of
God was eternal and pre-existent ; also that when his sacrifice
did take place, it covered sins of the past (see v. 15 ), the single
sacrifice of Christ in our day availing for all sin, past as well as
present and future. Had it not been so, God could not have
left it till so late in the world's history ; it would have had to be
done over and over again to meet the needs of men from the
outset of history. Hwl 8e (logical, as in 8 6 , not temporal) eVi
(ruireXeia (for which Blass arbitrarily reads Te'Aei) t£>v aldjvuv ( = cV
i<rx<*Tov twv r)/x€pC)v tovtwv, i 2 ) kt\. IwTiktia is employed in its
ordinary Hellenistic sense of " conclusion " (e.g. Test. Benj. xi. 3,
la)? o-uvTcAeias tov aiaivos : Test. Levi X. 2, hri T77 a-WTeXua twv
atwvwv); in Matthew's gospel, where alone in the NT it
occurs, the genitive is tov atwvos. rie^avcpuTai, as in the
primitive hymn or confession of faith (1 Ti 3 16 i<pavepw6r) ev
crapKi) ; but the closest parallel is in 1 P i 20 Xpio-rou -npoiy-
vwa/xevov fxkv trpb K.aTaf3o\r)s Koo-fxov, <pavepu)6evTQ<; 8k lir lcr)(dlrov
twv x/3oVo>v. The object of the incarnation is, as in 2 9 , the
atonement.
The thought of the first "appearance" of Christ naturally
suggests that of the second, and the thought of Jesus dying aira£
also suggests that men have to die aVa£ as well. Hence the
parenthesis of w. 27 - 28 , for io 1 carries on the argument from g 26 .
It is a parenthesis, yet a parenthesis of central importance for
the primitive religious eschatology which formed part of the
writer's inheritance, however inconsistent with his deeper views
of faith and fellowship. "As surely as men have once to die
and then to face the judgment, so Christ, once sacrificed for the
sins of men, will reappear to complete the salvation of his own."
'AiroKeiTai (cp. Longinus, de sublini. 9 7 o.XX' rjpuv fxkv Sva-Satfjiovov-
uiv aTTOKeiTCLi \Lp.r]v Ka/caiv 6 #ava-ros, and 4 Mac 8 11 ovSlv vplv
aTretOijcracnv TrXrjv tov fiera o-rpefikwv airodavelv aTTOKeiTcu) rots
dvOpcijirois SiTa£ diro0a»'€ii'. The a7ra£ here is not by way of relief,
although the Greeks consoled themselves by reflecting that
they had not to die twice ; as they could only live once, they
drew from this the conclusion that life must be "all the
sweeter, as an experience that never can be repeated" (A. C.
Pearson on Sophocles' Fragments, n. 67). But our author (see
on 2 14 ) sees that death is not the last thing to be faced by
men; fie-m Se touto Kpuns. This was what added serious-
ness to the prospect of death for early Christians. The Greek
mind was exempt from such a dread; for them death ended
the anxieties of life, and if there was one thing of which
the Greek was sure, it was that "dead men rise up never."
134 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [IX. 27, 28.
Aeschylus, for example, makes Apollo declare (Eumenides, 647,
648):
avopos o €7T€toav at/A avacnracrr] kovis
dira^ Oavovros, outis t<JT dvacrracrts.
Even in the sense of a return to life, there is no dvaorao-is
(Eurip. Heracles, 297; Alcestis, 1076; Supplices, 775). Kpuns in
En I 7f * (*at K/aicris carat Kara. irdvTtov), as the context shows, is
the eschatological catastrophe which spares the elect on earth,
just as in En 5 6 , which parallels He q 28 , sinners are threatened
thus : Tracnv vplv rots dyu.apTwA.ots ov^ virdp^ei (rwrrqpia dXXd €7rt
irdvras v/xas KaraXucns, Kardpa. In io 27 below Kptais means the
doom of the rebellious, but that is due to the context ; here it is
judgment in general, to which all dfGp&nroi alike are liable (12 23
Kpirrj 6zu> TravTuv). Only, some have the happy experience of
Christ's return (v. 28 ), in the saving power of his sacrifice. There
is (as in I P 2 24 ) an echo of Is 53 12 (kol airros d/iaprtas iroWuv
avrjveyKev) in els to ttoXXwi' (cp. above On 2 10 ) dvei/eyKeif d/iapTias.
npoo-ci/exOeis may be chosen to parallel men's passive experience
of death. At any rate his suffering of death was vicarious suffer-
ing ; he took upon himself the consequences and responsibilities
of our sins. Such is the Christ who Ik SeuWpou 6<j>0r)o-eTai. In
1 P 5 4 <J>ayepoGo-9ai is used of the second appearance as well as
of the first, but our author prefers a variety (see on v. 26 ) of
expression. The striking phrase x w pis dfiapTias rests on the idea
that the one atonement had been final (cts dOirrjaiv t^s ap-aprUs),
and that Christ was now KexcopiajxeVos diro tu>v djxapTcoXwi' (7 26 ).
He is not coming back to die, and without death sin could not
be dealt with. The homiletic (from 2 Ti 3 16 ) addition of 8id
(t)}s, 161 1. 2005) morews, either after direKSexofA^ots (by 38. 68.
218. 256. 263. 330. 436. 440. 462. 823. 1837 arm. etc.) or after
awTTjpiaf (by A P 1245. 1898 syr hld ), is connected with the mis-
taken idea that cts o-a>T-qptav goes with dTrc/cSt^o/xeVots (cp. Phil 3 20 )
instead of with d<j>9rjo-eTai. There is a very different kind of
ckSoxt (io 27 ) for some SvOpmroi, even for some who once belonged
to the People !
He now resumes the idea of 9 25, 26 , expanding it by showing
how the personal sacrifice of Jesus was final. This is done by
quoting a passage from the 40th psalm which predicted the
supersession of animal sacrifices (vv. 5-10 ). The latter are in-
adequate, as is seen from the fact of their annual repetition ; and
they are annual because they are animal sacrifices.
1 For as the Law has a mere shadow of the bliss that is to be, instead of
representing the reality of that bliss, it never can perfect those who draw near
with the same annual sacrifices that are perpetually offered. * Otherwise,
they would have surely ceased to be offered ; for the worshippers, once cleansed,
would no longer be conscious of sins ! s As it is, they are an annual reminder
X. 1.] THE FORTIETH PSALM 135
of sins * (for the blood of bulls and goats cannot possibly remove sins .').
* Hence, on entering the world he says,
" Thou hast no desire for sacrifice or offering;
it is a body thou hast prepared for me —
6 in holocausts and sin-offerings (irepl afiaprlas as 13 11 ) thou
takest no delight.
7 So (rdre) I said, ' Here I come — in the roll of the book this
is written of me —
/ come to do thy will, O God.' "
8 He begins by saying, ' ' Thou hast no desire for, thou takest no delight in,
sacrifices and offerings and holocausts and sin-offerings" (and those are what
are offered in terms of the Law) ; 9 he then (rdre) adds, " Here I come to do
thy tvill." He does away with the first in order to establish the second.
10 And it is by this ' ' will" that we are consecrated, because fesus Christ once
for all has "offered" up his "body."
This is the author's final verdict on the levitical cultus,
"rapid in utterance, lofty in tone, rising from the didactic style
of the theological doctor to the oracular speech of the Hebrew
prophet, as in that peremptory sentence : ' It is not possible that
the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.' The
notable thing in it is, not any new line of argument, though that
element is not wanting, but the series of spiritual intuitions it
contains, stated or hinted, in brief, pithy phrases " (A. B. Bruce,
np, 373, 374). In (nadr . . . ook eiicoVa tw TrpayfAdTaji' (v. 1 ) the
writer uses a Platonic phrase (Cratylus, 306 E, et/cdvas w Trpay-
[jLaroiv) ; eiKtuv ( - aX^Beta, Chrysostom) is contrasted with o-/ad
as the real expression or representation of substance is opposed
to the faint shadow. The addition of twv Trpayfidroiv ( = tw
IxiXXovTwv ayaOuv) emphasizes this sense ; what represents solid
realities is itself real, as compared to a mere o-iad. The iiAXoira
dyaOd (9 11 ) are the boons and blessings still to be realized in
their fulness for Christians, being thought of from the stand-
point of the new ha6r}K-q, not of the Law. The Law is for
the writer no more than the regulations which provided for the
cultus ; the centre of gravity in the Law lies in the priesthood
(7 11 ) and its sacrifices, not in what were the real provisions of
the Law historically. The writer rarely speaks of the Law by
itself. When he does so, as here, it is in this special ritual
aspect, and what really bulks in his view is the contrast between
the old and the new SiaO-qicr), i.e. the inadequate and the adequate
forms of relationship to God. Once the former was superseded,
the Law collapsed, and under the new SiaOrJKr] there is no new
Law. Even while the Law lasted, it was shadowy and ineffective,
i.e. as a means of securing due access to God. And this is the
point here made against the Law, not as Paul conceived it, but
as the system of atoning animal sacrifices.
The text of v. 1 has been tampered with at an early stage, though the
variants affect the grammar rather than the general sense. Unless Svvcltoi
136 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 1, 2.
(D H K L ^ 2. 5. 35. 88. 181. 206. 226. 241. 242. 255. 326. 383. 429. 431.
547. 623. 794. 915. 917. 927. 1311. 1518. 1739. 1827. 1836. 1845. 1867.
1873. 1898. 2143 lat boh Orig. Chrys. Thdt. Oec.) is read for duvavrai, c
v6/jlos is a hanging nominative, and an awkward anacolouthon results. Hort
suggests that the original form of the text was : Kad' ■f/v /car iviavrbv ras auras
Ovcrlas irpo<x<j)ipovcn.v, at eh rb SiyveKks ovMirore dvvavrai rovs irpocrepxo/J^vovs
rekeiGxrai. As in 9 9 , /ca#' ijv (dropped out by a scribe accidentally, owing to
the resemblance between KA0HN and ka0gn) would connect with a previous
noun (here trici&v), <m similarly fell out before 61 (eic)j and AC was changed
into Aic in the three consecutive words after iviavrbv. This still leaves 6
v6fj.os without a verb, however, and is no improvement upon the sense gained
either (a) by treating 6 v6(j.os as a nominative absolute, and Svvavrai as an
irregular plural depending on at understood 1 from ducrlais ; or (b) by simply
reading bijvarai (so Delitzsch, Weiss, Westcott, Peake, Riggenbach, Blass),
which clears up everything. A desire to smooth out the grammar or to
bring out some private interpretation may be underneath changes like the
addition of avirciv after 6-ucriais (n P), or the substitution of avrCiv for aurats
(69. 1319), or the omission of avrah altogether (2. 177. 206. 642. 920. 1518.
1872), as well as the omission of #s (A 33. 161 1. 2005) or ats altogether, like
the Syriac and Armenian versions, and the change of T«\eiu)<rai (reXewcrai,
Blass) into Kadapivai (D vt).
npoor^pouo-ie is an idiomatic use of the plural (Mt 2 20 nOvr)-
Kacrw, Lk 1 2 20 aiToucriv), "where there is such a suppression of the
subject in bringing emphasis upon the action, that we get the
effect of a passive, or of French on, German man " (Moulton, i.
58). The allusion is to the yearly sacrifice on atonement-day,
for TTpoacfiepovo-iv goes with kcit cyiauToi', the latter phrase being
thrown forward for the sake of emphasis, and also in order to
avoid bringing els to 8ir|i'eK^s too near it. Eis to Si^vckcs also
goes with Trpo<T(p£pov<Tiv, not (as in v. 14 ) with TtAeiow. OuSe'iroTe
here as in v. 11 before SuVa^Tcu (never elsewhere in the epistle) is
doubly emphatic from its position. The constant repetition of
these sacrifices proves that their effect is only temporary ; they
cannot possibly bring about a lasting, adequate relationship to
God. So our author denies the belief of Judaism that atone-
ment-day availed for the pardon of the People, a belief explicitly
put forward, e.g., in Jub 5 17, 18 (" If they turn to Him in righteous-
ness, He will forgive all their transgressions, and pardon all their
sins. It is written and ordained that He will show mercy to all
who turn from their guilt once a year "). He reiterates this in
v. 2 , where eirei (as in 9 26 = alioquin) is followed by ouk, which
implies a question. " Would they not, otherwise, have ceased
to be offered ? " When this was not seen, either ouk was omitted
(H* vg? syr 206. 1245. l 5 1 ^ Primasius, etc.), leaving av out of
its proper place, or it was suggested — as would never have
occurred to the author — that the OT sacrifices ceased to be valid
1 It is inserted by A** 31. 366. 472. 1319 syr hkl arm. If the relative
pronoun were assimilated, i.e. if ats (D* H L 5. 88. 257. 547, etc.) were read
for 4s, the accidental omission of al would be more intelligible.
X. 2-4.] SACRIFICE PERFECT AND IMPERFECT 1 37
when the Christian sacrifice took place. In ook av ittauaavro
irpocr^>ep6fi.€vai (for construction see Gn n 8 eTravaavTO oIkoSo-
fx.owTt's) the av is retained (see on q 26 ). KocaOapio-jiivous has
been altered into KtKaddp/Atvovs (L), but KaOapi'Qn, not the Attic
Ka.6a.1poi, is the general NT form. If our author spelt like his
LXX codex, however, KeKa6epio-/xevov<; would be original (cp.
Thackeray, 74). lucei'Snais is again used (9 9 ) in connexion with
"the worshipper(s)," but the writer adds aiiapnCtv (i.e. sins still
needing to be pardoned). For the genitive, compare Philo's
fine remark in quod det. pot. 40, lKeTevwp.€v ovv tov 6*6v o\
avvci8rjo~€i twv oIkciwv dSiKr]p.dTO)v eXey^oyxevot, KoX.daai fidWov
■qfxai r) irapelvai. In v. 3 dcd/xi'Tjais means that public notice had
to be taken of such sins (" commemoratio," vg).
There is possibly an echo here of a passage like Nu 5 1S (dv<ria fivri/jioavvov
&vafiifivfi<TKov<ra afxaprlav), quoted by Philo in de Plant. 25 to illustrate his
statement that the sacrifices of the wicked simply serve to recall their misdeeds
(vwonifJivf)GKOV<Ta.i. ras eK&ffTwv dyvoias re Kal diafiaprlas). In vita Mosis, iii.
10, he repeats this ; if the sacrificer ,was ignorant and wicked, the sacrifices
were no sacrifices (. . . ov \vcnv dp.apm)p.dTuv, dXX' xnr6p.vri<nv ipyd^ovrai).
What Philo declares is the result of sacrifices offered by the wicked, the
author of Hebrews declares was the result of all sacrifices ; they only served
to bring sin to mind. So in de Victimis, 7, eti-qdes yap -ras dvcrlas virdp-v-qaiv
afiapTTifJUTUP d\\a fir/ \-qd-qv avrQv KaraffKevafeiv — what Philo declares absurd,
our author pronounces inevitable.
The ringing assertion of v. 4 voices a sentiment which would
appeal strongly to readers who had been familiar with the
classical and contemporary protests (cp. ERE. iii. 77o a ), against
ritual and external sacrifice as a means of moral purification
(see above on 9 13 ). 'Afyaipelv, a LXX verb in this connexion
(e.g. Num 14 18 aupaipwv dvop.Ca<s Kal dSiKias Kal d/xaprias), becomes
a.<pe\civ in L (so Blass), the aoristic and commoner form ; the
verb is never used elsewhere in the NT, though Paul once
quotes Is 27 s oVav d<pe\wfjLai d/xapnas (Ro 11 97 ). All this inherent
defectiveness of animal sacrifices necessitated a new sacrifice
altogether (v. 5 Sid), the self-sacrifice of Jesus. So the writer
quotes Ps 40 7 " 9 , which in A runs as follows :
Ovaiav Kal -irpoo~<popdv ovk ^OeXn/jaas,
awfia 8e Karrjpricra) /xoi'
o\oKavTu>p.aTa Kat irepi ap.apTias ovk e^T^cras.
TOT€ €1770^' l8o\) TjKOi,
(iv K€(pa\i$i /3l/3\iov y€ypa7TTai irept i/j-ov)
tov iroirjo-ai to 6(.\rjp.d crov, 6 0eo5 /aov, rjfiovXrjOrpr.
Our author reads ev86i<i)<ras for i^r^tyas, 1 shifts 6 0e6s (omitting (jlov) to
1 Which is replaced in the text of Hebrews by ^ (iK^rp-rjireis) 623*. 1836.
The augment spelling T]v56Kri<ras reappears here as occasionally at v. 8 in a
small group (A C D* W, etc.), and the singular Ov<rlai> k. irpoacpopdv is kept
at v. 8 by iCD'KLW, etc.
138 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 4-9.
a position after voirjcrai., in order to emphasize t6 6£\r)fid <rov, and by omitting
ifiovMiOrpi (replaced by W in v. 7 ), connects rod iroirjirat closely with tjku.
A recollection of Ps 51 18 ei r)di\rj<Ta.s dvalav . . . oXo/cat/rci/mra owe evfioK-qaeis
may have suggested evddKrjcras, which takes the accusative as often in LXX.
Ke<pa\Ls is the roll or scroll, literally the knob or tip of the stick round which
the papyrus sheet was rolled (cp. Ezek 2 9 Ke<f>a\U /3t/3\/ou).
This is taken as an avowal of Christ on entering the world,
and the LXX mistranslation in awp.a is the pivot of the argu-
ment. The more correct translation would be a>Tia 6V, for the
psalmist declared that God had given him ears for the purpose
of attending to the divine monition to do the will of God,
instead of relying upon sacrifices. Whether una was corrupted
into crwfxa, or whether the latter was an independent translation,
is of no moment ; the evidence of the LXX text is indecisive.
Our author found 0-w/m in his LXX text and seized upon it;
Jesus came with his body to do God's will, i.e. to die for the
sins of men. The parenthetical phrase iv Ke<f><*\iSi |3(.p\iou
y^ypairrai irep! cp-ou, which originally referred to the Deutero-
nomic code prescribing obedience to God's will, now becomes
a general reference to the OT as a prediction of Christ's higher
sacrifice ; that is, if the writer really meant anything by it (he
does not transcribe it, when he comes to the interpretation,
vv. 8f -). Though the LXX mistranslated the psalm, however, it
did not alter its general sense. The Greek text meant practically
what the original had meant, and it made this interpretation 01
application possible, namely, that there was a sacrifice which
answered to the will of God as no animal sacrifice could. Only,
our author takes the will of God as requiring some sacrifice.
The point of his argument is not a contrast between animal
sacrifices and moral obedience to the will of God; it is a
contrast between the death of an animal which cannot enter into
the meaning of what is being done, and the death of Jesus which
means the free acceptance by him of all that God requires for
the expiation of human sin. To do the will of God is, for our
author, a sacrificial action, which involved for Jesus an atoning
death, and this is the thought underlying his exposition and
application of the psalm (vv. 8-10 ). In v. 8 dywrepoy is "above" or
" higher up " in the quotation (v. 6 ). The interpretation of the
oracle which follows is plain ; there are no textual variants worth
notice, 1 and the language is clear. Thus eiprjKee in v. 9 is the
perfect of a completed action, = the saying stands on record, and
dycupe! has its common juristic sense of " abrogate," the opposite
of IcTT-qfxi. The general idea is : Jesus entered the world fully
conscious that the various sacrifices of the Law were unavailing
as means of atonement, and ready to sacrifice himself in order
1 The vocative 6 0e6s is sometimes repeated after iroirjaai by k c L 104.
1288. 1739 vg syr 1,kl and P esh etc., or after <rov (e.g. I. 1311 had, arm).
X. 9, 10.] THE FINAL SACRIFICE 1 39
to carry out the redeeming will of God. God's will was to
bring his People into close fellowship with himself (2 10 ); this
necessitated a sacrifice such as that which the croifxa of Christ
could alone provide. The triumphant conclusion is that this
divine will, which had no interest in ordinary sacrifices, has been
fulfilled in the irpoo^opd of Christ ; what the Law could not do
(v. 1 ) has been achieved by the single self-sacrifice of Christ; it
is by what he suffered in his body, not by any animal sacrifices,
that we are irjYiacrp.€Voi (v. 10 ). Jesus chose to obey God's will ;
but, while the Psalmist simply ranked moral obedience higher
than any animal sacrifice, our writer ranks the moral obedience
of Jesus as redeemer above all such sacrifices. " Christ did not
come into the world to be a good man : it was not for this that
a body was prepared for him. He came to be a great High
Priest, and the body was prepared for him, that by the offering
of it he might put sinful men for ever into the perfect religious
relation to God" (Denney, The Death of Christ, p. 234).
In conclusion ( n - 18 ) the writer interprets ( n " 14 ) a phrase which
he has not yet noticed expressly, namely, that Christ sat down
at the right hand of God (i 3 - 13 ); this proves afresh that his
sacrifice was final. Then, having quoted from the pentateuch
and the psalter, he reverts to the prophets ( 15 ' 18 ), citing again
the oracle about the new BiaOrjicr} with its prediction, now fulfilled,
of a final pardon.
11 Again, while every priest stands daily at his service, offering the same
sacrifices repeatedly , sacrifices which never can take sins away — 12 He offered
a single sacrifice for sins and then " seated himself" for all time "at the
right hand of God," ls to wait " until his enemies are made a footstool for his
feet. " 14 For by a single offering he has made the sanctified perfect for all
time. 1S Besides, we have the testimony of the holy Spirit ; for after saying,
is «< This is the covenant I will make with them when that day comes,
saith the Lord,
I will set my laws upon their hearts,
inscribing them upon their minds,"
he adds,
17 " And their sins and breaches of the law I will remember no more."
18 Now where these are remitted (8.<pe<ris, as 9 22 ), an offering for sin exists (sc.
fori) no longer.
One or two textual difficulties emerge in this passage. In v. 11 tepcv? was
altered (after 5 1 8 3 ) into dpxiepeh (A C P 5. 69. 88. 206. 241. 256. 263. 436.
462. 467. 489. 623. 642. 794. 917. 920. 927. 999. 1836. 1837. 1898 syr hU *
sah arm eth Cyr. Cosm.). In v. 12 av-ros (KL 104. 326 boh Theod. Oec.
Theophyl.) is no improvement upon ovtos. A curious variant (boh Ephr. )
in the following words is iavrbv /zkw virkp a/xapriwu Trpoaeviyicas dvalav.
In v. 14 boh ("for one offering will complete them, who will be sanctified,
for ever") appears to have read /juo. yap Trpoa<pop6. (so Bgl.) reXeiwiret kt\.
In v. 16 t«ov Siavoiwv is read by K L ^ d r syr sah boh arm.
The decisive consideration in favour of tepeus (v. 11 ) is not that
140 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 11-14.
the apxiepws did not sacrifice daily (for the writer believed this,
see on 7 27 ), but the adjective ttos. riepieXeiv is a literary synonym
for &<f>atpeie (v. 4 ); there is no special emphasis in the verb here
any more than, e.g., in 2 Co 3 16 , for the (Zeph 3 15 -jrepielXe Kvpios
ra aSLK^fx-ard aov) metaphorical idea of stripping no longer
attached to the term, and the irept had ceased to mean " entirely "
or "altogether." The contrast between this repeated and in-
effective ritual of the priests and the solitary, valid sacrifice of
Jesus is now drawn in v. 12 , where els to oujveKe's goes more
effectively with iKaQiaev than with TrpocrcyeYKas Quaiav, since the
idea in the latter collocation is at once expressed in v. 14 At the
opening of the writer's favourite psalm (no 1 ) lay a promise of
God to his Son, which further proved that this sacrifice of Christ
was final :
£ITT€V 6 KVpiOS TW KVpitp /U.OV K(£#OU CK Se£lCOV p.OV
fo)S olv $10 tous i)(9pov<i uov viroir6?>ioY twv iroouiV <rov.
Kddov — a unique privilege ; so Christ's priestly sacrifice must be
done and over, all that remains for him being to await the sub-
mission and homage of his foes. As for the obedient (5 s ), they
are perfected " finally," i.e. brought into the closest relation to
God, by what he has done for them ; no need for him to stand
at any priestly service on their behalf, like the levitical drudges !
The contrast is between iKaQurev and i<m]Kev (the attitude of a
priest who has to be always ready for some sacrifice). Who the
foes of Christ are, the writer never says. 1 This militant metaphor
was not quite congruous with the sacerdotal metaphor, although
he found the two side by side in the 110th psalm. If he inter-
preted the prediction as Paul did in 1 Co i5 25f -, we might think
of the devil (2 14 ) and such supernatural powers of evil; but this
is not an idea which is worked out in ripos c Ej3pcuous. The
conception belonged to the primitive messianic faith of the
church, and the writer takes it up for a special purpose of his
own, but he cannot interpret it, as Paul does, of an active reign of
Christ during the brief interval before the end. Christ must
reign actively, Paul argues. Christ must sit, says our writer.
The usual variation between the LXX 4k 5e£iuw and Iv 8e|i<f is reproduced
in ITpds 'Eppaiovs: the author prefers the latter, when he is not definitely
quoting from the LXX as in iX As this is a reminiscence rather than a
citation, 4v 8e£i$ is the true reading, though 4k de^iQv is introduced by A 104
Athanasius. The theological significance of the idea is discussed in Dr. A.
J. Tait's monograph on The Heavenly Session of our Lord (1912), in which
he points out the misleading influence of the Vulgate's mistranslation of io 12
( " hie autem unam pro peccatis offerens hostiam in sempiternum sedit ") upon
the notion that Christ pleads his passion in heaven.
1 In Clem. Rom. 36 s - 6 they are ol <pa,0\oi Kal avriraao-b^evoi. t$ 6e\rj/j.aTi
ifrrov.
X. 15-19.] THE FINAL APPEAL 141
After reiterating the single sacrifice in v. 14 (where too? &yia£o-
fieVous is "the sanctified," precisely as in 2 11 ), he adds (v. 15 ) an
additional proof from scripture. Map-rupee 8e TJp.ie ica! to iTccujia
to ayioc, a biblical proof as usual clinching the argument. 'H}ilv
is " you and me," " us Christians," not the literary plural, as if
he meant " what I say is attested or confirmed by the inspired
book." MapTupelf is a common Philonic term in this connexion,
e.g. Leg. Alleg. iii. 2, p,aprvptl Sk ko.1 iv cTepots Ae'yojv ktA,. (intro-
ducing Dt 4 39 and Ex 17 6 ); similarly in Xen. Mem. i. 2. 20,
fxaprvptl Se /cat twv TroirjTwv 6 Acywv. The quotation, which is
obviously from memory, is part of the oracle already quoted
upon the new SiaOrJKr) (8 8 - 12 ) ; the salient sentence is the closing
promise of pardon in v. 17 , but he leads up to it by citing some
of the introductory lines. The opening, /acto yap to clprjiceVai,
implies that some verb follows or was meant to follow, but the
only one in the extant text is Xe'yei Ku'pios (v. 16 ). Hence, before
v. 17 we must understand something like fiaprvpel or Ae'yci or
TrpocreOrjKev koll (ftrja-tv (Oecumenius) or Tore elprjKev, although the
evidence for any such phrase, e.g. for varepov Aiyci (31. 37. 55.
67. 71. 73. 80. 161) is highly precarious. In v. 17 p.rno-0iiaop.ai
has been corrected into fivrjaOu by K C D C KL P, etc., since p.nr)o-0w
was the LXX reading and also better grammar, the future after
00 |xt] being rare (cp. Diat. 2255, and above on 8 11 ). The oracle,
even in the LXX version, contemplates no sacrifice whatever
as a condition of pardon; but our author (see above, p. 131)
assumes that such an absolute forgiveness was conditioned by
some sacrifice.
The writer now (io 19 -i2 29 ) proceeds to apply his arguments
practically to the situation of his readers, urging their privileges
and their responsibilities under the new order of religion which
he has just outlined. In 10 19 - 31 , which is the first paragraph,
encouragement (vv. 19 " 25 ) passes into warning ( 26 - 31 ).
19 Brothers (&8e\(pol, not since 3 1 - 12 ), since we have confidence to enter the
holy Presence in virtue of the blood of Jesus, *> by the fresh, living way which
he has inaugurated for us through the veil {that is, through his flesh), 21 and
since we have "a great Priest over the house of God," 22 let us draw near with
a true heart, in absolute assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean from
a bad conscience, and our bodies washed in pure water ; M let us hold the hope
we avow without wavering {for we can rely on him ivho gave us the Promise) ;
24 and let us consider how to stir one another up to love and good deeds— - 2B not
ceasing to meet together, as is the habit of some, but admonishing one another
(sc. eavrovs, as 3 13 ), all the more so, as you see the Day coming near.
The writer (e'xorres ouv) presses the weighty arguments of
620_ Io i8 } but ne returns with them to reinforce the appeal of
3 a -4 16 ; after io 19-21 the conception of Jesus as the tcpevs falls
more into the background. The passage is one long sentence,
142 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 19, 20.
e'xocTes . . . TrpoCT€pxw(i.e0a . . . tcaTe'xwp.ek . . . koi Ka.TavoCjp.ei>
. . . "Exotics oui/ (as in 4 14 ) since the way is now open (9 s )
through the sacrifice of Jesus, whose atoning blood is for us the
means of entering God's presence ; irappr]criav, " a fre sure
intraunce" (Coverdale), echoing 4 16 . But the writer fills out
the appeal of 4 14 - 16 with the idea of the sanctuary and the
sacrifice which he had broken off, in 5 lf -, to develop. Though
the appeal still is irpoo-epxcSfieGa ( 23 = 4 16 ), the special motives are
twofold : (a) -napp^aia for access in virtue of the sacrifice of Jesus
(vv. 19 - 20 ), and (l>) the possession of Jesus as the supreme tepeu's
(v. 21 ). (a) The religious sense of Trapprjcria emerges in the early
gloss inserted after Sir 18 29 :
Kpeicrcrwv irappyio-ia iv Sea-irorr} fxovta
■fj veKpa KapSia. veKp&v avre^ecrOai.
Here irapprja-ia means confident trust, the unhesitating adherence
of a human soul to God as its only Master, but our author
specially defines it as irapprjaia els (cp. 2 P i 11 17 euroSos €ts tt)v
aiwviov ySao-iXetav) cTaoSoy (with gen. as 68ov in g s , but not a
synonym for 680V), i.e. for access to (t£>v dyiwi') the holy Presence,
iv tu cupcm 'Itjctou (qualifying cto-oSov). 1 This resumes the
thought of 9 24 " 26 io 10-12 (iv ai/Aart as in 9 25 ). Compare for the
phrase and general idea the words on the self-sacrifice of Decius
Mus in Florus, i. 15. 3 : "quasi monitu deorum, capite uelato,
primam ante aciem dis manibus se devoverit, ut in confertissima
se hostium tela iaculatus nouum ad uictoriam iter sanguinis sui
semita aperiret." This cio-oSos twv dyt'wv iv ™ cu/iai-i 'I-qaov is
further described in v. 20 ; we enter by (rjv, with 68ov . . . £coo-av
in apposition) a way which Jesus has inaugurated by his sacrifice
(9 18 - 2i - 25 ). This way is called recent or fresh and also living.
In Trp6or<{>aTos, as in the case of other compounds (e.g. KcAatvcep^s),
the literal sense of the second element had been long forgotten
(cp. Holden's note on Plutarch's Themistocles, 24) ; 7rpdo-<£aTos
simply means "fresh," without any sacrificial allusion ("freshly-
killed"). Galen (de Hipp, et Plat. plac. iv. 7) quotes the well-
known saying that \virr) icrrl 86£a 7rpdo-<£aTos kolkov 7rapowias,
and the word (i.e. to dpi-icos ywofxevov, veov, veapov, Hesychius), as
is plain from other passages like Arist. Magna Moralia, 1203^
(6 €K tt}? 7rpo(T<pdTov <^>avTao-ias d/cpar^s ktX.), and Eccles I 9 (ovk
Zcttlv irav irpoo-^arov viro tov rjXiov), had no longer any of the
specific sacrificial sense suggested etymologically by its second
part. It is the thought of exit's in 13 8 , though the writer means
1 Hence the idea is not put in quite the same way as in Eph 3 12 (£i> <£
ZxofJ-ev T V" irappTjaLav Kal tt)v irpoaaywy-qv). In Sir 25 2S fnjde (5ys) yvvaucl
Trovqpy i^ovaiav, k A read irapprjclav for B's i^ovcrlav, which proves how deeply
the idea of liberty was rooted in irapp-qvla.
X. 20-24.] THE VEIL 143
particularly (as in i 1 " 2 9 8 - 11 ) to suggest that a long period had
elapsed before the perfect fellowship was inaugurated finally ; it
is 7rpdo-^>aTos, not apxcuos. Zuxrav means, in the light of 7 25 (cp.
Jn 14 6 ), that access to God is mediated by the living Christ in
virtue of his sacrificial intercession ; the contrast is not so much
with what is transient, as though £wo-av were equivalent to fxevova-av
(Chrysostom, Cosm. 415a), as with the dead victims of the
OT cultus or " the lifeless pavement trodden by the highpriest "
(Delitzsch). He entered God's presence thus Sid toG KaTcnT€-
Tdo-jxaTos (6 19 9 s ), tout €(mv tou crapicos auToG — a ritual expression
for the idea of 6 19 . Aid is local, and, whether a verb like
elaekQuv is supplied or not, 81a t. k. goes with iveKalviaev, the idea
being that Jesus had to die, in order to bring us into a living
fellowship with God ; the shedding of his blood meant that he
had a body (io 5-10 ) to offer in sacrifice (cp. 9 14 ). The writer,
however, elaborates his argument with a fresh detail of
symbolism, suggested by the ritual of the tabernacle which he
has already described in 9 2£ . There, the very existence of a veil
hanging between the outer and the inner sanctuary was interpreted
as a proof that access to God's presence was as yet imperfectly
realized. The highpriest carried once a year inside the veil the
blood of victims slain outside it ; that was all. Jesus, on the
other hand, sheds his own blood as a perfect sacrifice, and thus
wins entrance for us into the presence of God. Only, instead of
saying that his sacrificial death meant the rending of the veil
(like the author of Mk 15 38 ), i.e. the supersession of the OT
barriers between God and man, he allegorizes the veil here as
the flesh of Christ ; this had to be rent before the blood could
be shed, which enabled him to enter and open God's presence
for the people. It is a daring, poetical touch, and the parallelism
is not to be prosaically pressed into any suggestion that the
human nature in Jesus hid God from men Iv tcus Tju.e'pcus rfis
o-apKos auToG, or that he ceased to be truly human when he
sacrificed himself.
The idea already suggested in i&crav is now (b) developed
(in V. 21 ) by (Ixodes) *a! lepe'a piyav eirl Toy oiKOf toG 0eoG, another
echo of the earlier passage (cp. 3 1 " 6 4 14 ), tepeus pe'yas being a
sonorous LXX equivalent for dpxupev?. Then comes the triple
appeal, Trpocrepxwp.€0a . . . KdTe'xwu.ei' . . . koi ko.to.vou\i.zv . . .
The metaphor of Trpoo-epxwu.€0a kt\. (v. 22 ), breaks down upon the
fact that the Israelites never entered the innermost shrine, except
as represented by their highpriest who entered once a year iv
aipcm dXXoTptw (9 7 - 25 ), which he took with him in order to atone
for the sins that interrupted the communion of God and the
people. In ripos c E|3paious the point is that, in virtue of the
blood of Christ, Christians enjoy continuous fellowship with
144 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 24-29.
God; the sacrifice of Christ enables them to approach God's
presence, since their sins have been once and for all removed.
The entrance of the OT highpriest therefore corresponds both
to the sacrifice of Christ and to that access of Christians which
the blood of Christ secures. On the one hand, Christ is our high-
priest (v. 21 ) ; through his self-sacrifice in death the presence of
God has been thrown open to us (vv. 19 - 20 ). This is the primary
thought. But in order to express our use of this privilege, the
writer has also to fall back upon language which suggests the
entrance of the OT highpriest (cp. v. 19 iv tu> cuucm 'Itjo-ou with
9 25 ). He does not mean that Christians are priests, with the
right of entry in virtue of a sacrifice which they present, but,
as to approach God was a priestly prerogative under the older
order, he describes the Christian access to God in sacerdotal
metaphors. npocrcpxcoueGa is one of these. It is amplified first
by a fie-rd clause, and then by two participial clauses. The
approach to God must be whole-hearted, jxcTa dXtiGie^s icapSias, 1
without any hesitation or doubt, iv irXY]po<|>opta (6 11 ) moreus. 2
This thought of ttLvtis as man's genuine answer to the realities
of divine revelation, is presently to be developed at length
(io 38f -). Meantime the writer throws in the double participial
clause, pepakTiapicVoi . . . KaOapu. The metaphors are sacer-
dotal ; as priests were sprinkled with blood and bathed in water,
to qualify them for their sacred service, so Christians may
approach God with all confidence, on the basis of Christ's
sacrifice, since they have been pepavTicrp,eVoi {i.e. sprinkled and
so purified from — a frequent use of the verb) d-n-6 owciS^crews
iro^pas ( = crweiS^creios a/xapTLwv, io 2 ) in their hearts (tois icapSias
— no external cleansing). Then the writer adds, kcu XeXouo-p.eVoi
to o-wp,a uSa-ri ica0apu>, suggesting that baptism corresponded to
the bathing of priests (e.g. in Lev 16 4 ). Once and for all, at
baptism (cp. i P 3 21 ), Christians have been thus purified from
guilty stains by the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice. 3 What room
then can there be in their minds for anything but faith, a confident
faith that draws near to God, sure that there is no longer
anything between Him and them ?
The distinctive feature which marked off the Christian
j3airn.crp.6s from all similar ablutions (6 2 9 10 ) was that it meant
something more than a cleansing of the body ; it was part and
parcel of an inward cleansing of the /capSid, effected by to atua
1 The phrase £v AXydivrj Kapdlq. occurs in Test. Dan 5 3 {v. I. KaOapq.) and in
Is 38 s (iv. k. d.).
2 There is a verbal parallel in the account of Isis-worship given by
Apuleius {Metamorph. xi. 28: " ergo igitur cunctis adfatim praeparatis . . .
principalis dei nocturnis orgiis inlustratus, plena iatn fiditcia germanae
religionis obsequium diuinum frequentabam ").
* More specifically, by the aXp.a. pavriff/xov of I2 24 .
X. 23.] PURITY 145
ttjs Sia6rJKT|s (v. 29 ). 1 Hence this as the vital element is put first,
though the body had also its place and part in the cleansing ex-
perience. The KapSia and the a-wfxa are a full, plastic expression
for the entire personality, as an ancient conceived it. Ancient
religious literature 2 is full of orders for the penitent to approach
the gods only after moral contrition and bodily cleansing, with a
clean heart and a clean body, in clean clothes even. But, apart
from other things, such ablutions had to be repeated, while the
Christian Pcnrrurfios was a single ceremony, lying at the source and
start of the religious experience. And what our author is think-
ing of particularly is not this or that pagan rite, but the OT
ritual for priests as described in Ex 29 20f -, Lv 8 23t i4 5f - etc. (cp.
Jotna 3).
Three specimens of the anxious care for bodily purity in ancient religious
ritual may be given. First (i) the ritual directions for worship in Syll. 567
(ii A.D. ) : irp&Tov fiev Kal rb p-iyio-rov , x € ?P a s Ka ^ yufJ-V Kadapovs Kal vyiels
virdpxovTas Kal fMr/dev avrois deivbv <rwei56ras. Second (ii) the stress laid on
it by a writer like Philo, who {quod deus sit immutabilis, 2), after pleading
that we should honour God by purifying ourselves from evil deeds and
washing off the stains of life, adds : koX yap ev-qOes els fiev to. lepa /jlt] ^elvai
j3adi£eiv, 3s dv p.rj irpdrepov Xovad/xevos (paidpvvriTai rb <rwfia, eiixeo-dai de Kal
6veiv iinxeipeiv £ti KrjXtdwfxivg Kal ire<t>vpp.£vr) biavola. His argument is that
if the body requires ablutions (TrepippavTrjpiois Kal Ka0apalot.s ayvevriKois)
before touching an external shrine, how can anyone who is morally impure
draw near (irpoaeXdeiv ry 0eui) the most pure God, unless he means to
repent ? '0 fiev yap Trpbs t£ fi7]8ev iire^epydcaadai KaKbv Kal to. iraXaia iKvi\pao~-
6ai 8iKaiw<xas yeyrjOus TvpoaWui [cp. He io 19, 22 ], 6 5' tivev tovtuv ducrKadapros
u>f a<f>LUTaa6oi' XrjcreTai yap ovbtwore rbv to. iv /jlvxois ttjs oiavoias opwvra [cp.
He 4 13 ] Kal rois dSvrois avrijs ifnrepnraTovvTa. Or again in de Plant. 39 :
<x<j}fj.ara Kal \pvxas Kad-qpdfxevoi, ra fiev Xovrpols, ra Se v6/xwv Kal 7rcu5«as bpdrjs
peu/j-aat. In de Cherub. 28 he denounces the ostentatious religion of the
worldlv, who in addition to their other faults, t& jiiv o-w/xara Xovrpoh Kal
Kadapalois diroppvirTOVTai, to. de \pvxys iKvl^acrdai irddrj, oh KarappviraiveTai 6
/St'os, ovre j3o6\ovrai oilre eTriTT]8evov<n, are very particular about their outward
religious practices 3 but careless about a clean soul. Finally, (iii) there is the
saying of Epictetus (iv. 10. 3) : inel yap iKeivoi (i.e. the gods) <pv<xei Kadapol
Kal dKrjparoi, i<p' bo~ov TjyylKaaiv avrois ol dvd'puTroi Kara rbv \6yov, iirl toctovtov
Kal tov Kadapov Kal rod Kadaptov elalv dvdeKTiKol.
For the exceptional pepavrLcr/j-ivoL (n* A C D*), H c D° etc. have substituted
ippavTLapAvot. (so Theodoret). The Xe\ovap.ivoi of x B D P is the more
common koivtj form of the Attic \e\ovp.ivoi (A C D° etc.).
The next appeal (v. 23 ), Kcrre'xwfJiei' Tr\v ofj.oXoyiai' ttjs e\m8os
(to which N* vg pesh eth add the gloss of ^w), echoes 4 14
1 T6 alp.a ttjs diad-qK-qs iv y ■qyidadq, as I Co 6 U dAXa dire\ovcrao-de, d\\a
TjyidudTjre.
2 Cp. Eugen Fehrle's Die Kultische Keuschheit im Altertum (1910), pp.
26 f., 131 f. ; Sir J. G. Frazer's Adonis, Attis, Osiris (1907), pp. 407 f.
8 According to a recently discovered (first century) inscription on a
Palestinian synagogue (cp. Revue Biblique, 1921, pp. 247 f. ), the synagogue
was furnished with rbv ^evdva (for hospitality, cp. below, 13 2 ) Kal rd xPV a " T V-
pia tG>v vddruv (baths for ritual ablutions).
10
146 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 23, 24.
(Kpa.TwfX.cv tt}s o/xoXoyias) and 3 6 (eav rrjv ira.ppr)o~ia.v Kai to
Kavx r ll Jia T *? s ^ 7rt '^°5 • • • Ka.Ta.(Tx<»p-zv). This hope for the future
was first confessed at baptism, and rests upon God's promise 1
(as already explained in 6 17 - 18 ). It is to be held aicXi^s, a term
applied by Philo to the word of a good man (6 yap tov a-rrovSaiov,
<prj(TL, Xdyos o/3kos ectw, /3ej3aio<;, aK/Uvrys, di/^vSeoraTOS, ^prjptio- p.ivo'i
aXyjOeca, de Spec. Leg. ii. 1); in Irenaeus it recurs in a similar
connexion (i. 88, ed. Harvey : 6 tov kolvovo. rijs a\r)$eias d/cXtv^
ev eauTw KaTe^wv, ov Sid tov i3airTi.o-p,o.TO% ciXij^e). The old
Wycliffite version translates finely : " hold we the confessioun of
oure hope bowynge to no side." The close connexion between
pepa^TiCTfjieVoc kt\. and XeXouo-pveVoi ktX. makes it inadvisable to
begin the second appeal with icai XeXouo-fjicVoi to aalfjia uSa-ri icaOapw
(Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Lachmann, Lunemann, von Soden, B.
Weiss, etc.). A more plausible suggestion, first offered by
Theodoret and adopted recently by Hofmann and Seeberg, is to
begin the second appeal after mo-Tews, making KaTexwp.ee carry
pepcunao-fieVoi . . . KaGapu. This yields a good sense, for it
brings together the allusions to the baptismal confession. But
the ordinary view is more probable ; the asyndeton in Karexwixev
is impressive, and if it is objected that the KaTex^/xiv clause is
left with less content than the other two, the answer is that its
eschatological outlook is reiterated in the third clause, and that
by itself its brevity has a telling force. Besides, exorres KT ^-
( 19_21 ) introduce KaTexwjAee as well as -n-poo-epxwp.eda.
The third appeal ( 24 - 25 ) turns on love (cp. 6 10 ), as the first on
faith, and the second on hope. The members of the circle or
community are to stir up one another to the practice of Chris-
tian love. Since this is only possible when common worship
and fellowship are maintained, the writer warns them against
following the bad example of abandoning such gatherings ; kcu
Ka.Tarowp.ei' dXXrjXous, for, if we are to Karavodv Christ (3 1 ), we
are also bound to keep an eye on one another els iTapo£uo-p.de
dya-ir^s Kal icaXwi' epywe (i.e. an active, attractive moral life,
inspired by Christian love). This good sense of irapos'uo-p.ds as
stimulus seems to be an original touch ; in Greek elsewhere it
bears the bad sense of provocation or exasperation (cp. Ac 15 39 ),
although the verb Trapofjvveiv had already acquired a good sense
(e.g. in Josephus, Ant. xvi. 125, 7rapo^wat rrjv evvoiav : in Pr 6 3
10-81 iLT) eKXi)d/x€i/os, irap6^vv€ Se Kai tov (f>t\ov crov ov iveyvr]o~u> : and
in Xen. Cyrop. vi. 2. 5, koX tovtous eVaii/wv tc -rrapw^vve). Pliny's
words at the close of his letter to Caninius Rufus (iii. 7) illus-
trate what is meant by irapoi;vo-p.6<; in this sense : " Scio te
stimulis non egere ; me tamen tui caritas evocat ut currentem
1 An instance of this is quoted in ll u .
X. 24.] CHURCH FELLOWSHIP I47
quoque instigem, sicut tu soles me. 'Aya#r/ 8' epis, cum invicem
se mutuis exhortationibus amici ad amorem immortalitatis
exacuunt." How the irapo^varfx.6% is to be carried out, the writer
does not say. By setting a good example ? By definite exhorta-
tions (irapciKaXourrcs, v. 25 , like 13 1 )? Mtj eYKaTaXeurocTes — do not
do to one another what God never does to you (13 5 ), do not
leave your fellow-members in the lurch (the force of iyKaraXuireiv,
especially in the kolvtj) — Tr\v einau yaywyV eauTwi' (reflexive pro-
noun in the genitive = r)fjiwv). 'Etncruvaycoyr] in the kolvtj (cp. Deiss-
mann's Light from the East, 102 f.) means a collection (of money),
but had already in Jewish Greek (e.g. 2 Mac 2 7 «fws av awayrj 6
0£os iTrtavvaywyrjv rov Xaov) begun to acquire the present sense
of a popular " gathering." KaOws e0os (sc. Zo-tiv) tio-ik. But who
are these? What does this abandonment of common fellowship
mean? (a) Perhaps that some were growing ashamed of their
faith ; it was so insignificant and unpopular, even dangerous to
anyone who identified himself with it openly. They may have
begun to grow tired of the sacrifices and hardships involved in
membership of the local church. This is certainly the thought
of io s2f -,and it is better than to suppose (b) the leaders were a small
group of teachers or more intelligent Christians, who felt able, in
a false superiority, to do without common worship ; they did not
require to mix with the ordinary members ! The author in any
case is warning people against the dangers of individualism, a
warning on the lines of the best Greek and Jewish ethics, e.g.
Isokrates, ad Demon. 13, ti/jlo. to Scu/aoviov dei [xkv, fj.dXio-Ta 8k /xera
Trj<s 7toA.€oj9, and the rabbinic counsel in Taanith, n. 1 (" whenever
the Israelites suffer distress, and one of them withdraws from the
rest, two angels come to him and, laying their hands upon his
head, say, this man who separates himself from the assembly
shall not see the consolation which is to visit the congregation "),
or in Hillel's saying (Pirke Aboth 2 5 ) : " Separate not thyself
from the congregation, and trust not in thyself until the day of
thy death." The loyal Jews are described in Ps.-Sol 17 18 as
01 dya7rtovT£s cruvaywyas 60-1W, and a similar thought occurs also
(if " his " and not " my " is the correct reading) in Od. Sol 3 2 :
" His members are with Him, and on them do I hang." Any
early Christian who attempted to live like a pious particle without
the support of the community ran serious risks in an age when
there was no public opinion to support him. His isolation, what-
ever its motive — fear, fastidiousness, self-conceit, or anything else
— exposed him to the danger of losing his faith altogether. These
are possible explanations of the writer's grave tone in the pas-
sage before us. Some critics, like Zahn (§ 46), even think that
(c) such unsatisfactory Christians left their own little congrega-
tion for another, in a spirit of lawless pique, or to gratify their
148 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 25, 26.
own tastes selfishly ; but eauiw is not emphatic, and in any
congregation of Christians the duties of love would be pressed.
Separatist tendencies were not absent from the early church ;
thus some members considered themselves too good to require
common worship, as several warnings prove, e.g. in Barn 4 10
fir) k<x#' iavrovs cySvVovTe? fiovd^ere ws r)Srj SeSiKaiw/AeVoi, dAA* iirl
TO aVTO 0~UV€p)(Ofl€VOL (TVvtflTilTe 7T€/3l TOW KOLVrj <TVfJ.(^ipOVTO<i) and
Ign. Eph. 5 3 (o ovv fir) ipxofxevos iirl to olvto ovtos r)$r] VTreprjcpavel
xal iavrov SuKpivev). But in our epistle (d) the warning is directed
specially against people who combined Christianity with a
number of mystery-cults, patronizing them in turn, or who with-
drew from Christian fellowship, feeling that they had exhausted
the Christian faith and that it required to be supplemented by
some other cult. " At first and indeed always there were
naturally some people who imagined that one could secure the
sacred contents and blessings of Christianity as one did those of
Isis or the Magna Mater, and then withdraw " (Harnack,
Expansion of Christianity, bk. iii. c. 4 ; cp. Reitzenstein's Hellen.
Mysterienreligionen, 94). This was serious, for, as the writer
realized, it implied that they did not regard Christianity as the
final and full revelation ; their action proved that the Christian
faith ranked no higher with them than one of the numerous
Oriental cults which one by one might interest the mind, but
which were not necessarily in any case the last word on life.
The argument of the epistle has been directed against this mis-
conception of Christianity, and the writer here notes a practical
illustration of it in the conduct of adherents who were hold-
ing aloof, or who were in danger of holding aloof, from the
common worship. Hence the austere warning which follows.
Such a practice, or indeed any failure to " draw near " by
the way of Jesus, is an insult to God, which spells hopeless
ruin for the offender. And evidently this retribution is near.
Christians are to be specially on their guard against conduct
that means apostasy, for pXe'-n-eTe (how, he does not say)
i-yyitpvcrav (as in Ro 13 12 ) ir\v T\\iipav (here, as in 1 Co 3 13 ,
without iK€Lvrj or tov Kvpiov). This eschatological setting
distinguishes the next warning (vv. 26 ' 31 ) from the earlier
in 6 4 " 6 .
28 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the Truth,
there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, 27 nothing but an awful outlook of
doom, that " burning Wrath" which will " consume the foes" (see v. 13 ) of
God. 28 Anyone who has rejected the law of Moses "dies" without mercy,
" on the evidence of two or of three witnesses." 2a How much heavier, do you
suppose, will be the punishment assigned {i.e. by God) to him who has spurned
the Son of God, who has profaned "the covenant-blood" (9 20 ) with which he
was sanctified (io 10 ), who has insulted the Spirit of grace? ^ We know who
said, " Vengeance is mine, I will exact a requital" : and again (7rd\tc, as in
X. 26.] APOSTASY 1 49
2 13 ), " The Lord will pass sentence on his people." 31 It is an awful thing to
fall into the hands of the living God.
Apostasy like withdrawal from the church on the ground
already mentioned, is treated as one of the deliberate (ckouctius)
sins which (cp. on 5 2 ), under the OT order of religion, were
beyond any atonement. Wilful offences, like rebellion and
blasphemy against God, were reckoned unpardonable. " In the
case of one who, by his sin, intentionally disowns the covenant
itself, there can be no question of sacrifice. He has himself cut
away the ground on which it would have been possible for him
to obtain reconciliation" (Schultz, OT Theology, ii. 88). There
is an equivalent to this, under the new &ia0TJK*), our author
declares. To abandon Christianity is to avow that it is in-
adequate, and this denial of God's perfect revelation in Jesus
Christ is fatal to the apostate. In eKoucnws apapTorrwv Tjp.we ( 26 ),
€kou0-«us is put first for the sake of emphasis, and ap.apr6vTwv
means the sin of a7rocrn}vai airo 6eov £oivTos (3 12 ) or of Trapa-
warreiv (6 6 ), the present tense implying that such people persist
in this attitude. 'Ekouctlws is the keynote to the warning. Its
force may be felt in a passage like Thuc. iv. 98, where the
Athenians remind the Boeotians that God pardons what is done
under the stress of war and peril, /cat yap twv aKovcrimv ap,apr-q-
p.d.Twv Ka.Ta<j>vyr]v ctvat tovs /Jw/aovs, and that it is wanton and
presumptuous crimes alone which are heinous. Philo (vif. Mos.
i. 49) describes Balaam praying for forgiveness from God on
the ground that he had sinned vir dyvota? a\\' ov /ca#' ckovo-iov
yvwp.r)v. The adverb occurs in 2 Mac 14 3 CAA./«p.os . . . e/cotio-uos
8e p-e/jLoXvo-fxevos). The general idea of the entire warning is that
the moral order punishes all who wantonly and wilfully flout it ;
as Menander once put it (Kock's Com. Attic. Fragm. 700) :
vo/Aos <pvA.ax#els ovSev icrriv rj vo/x.os'
6 p.1] <pv\ax8el<; kcu yop.o<; ko.1 S7J/XIOS.
Our author expresses this law of retribution in personal terms
drawn from the OT, which prove how deeply moral and reverent
his religious faith was, and how he dreaded anything like pre-
suming upon God's kindness and mercy. The easy-going man
thinks God easy going ; he is not very serious about his religious
duties, and he cannot imagine howGodcan take them very seriously
either. " We know " better, says the author of IIpos 'Efipaiovs !
Christianity is described (in v. 26 ) as to A.a/3eiv rrjv iiriyvaiutv
t^s a\r)deia<s, a semi-technical phrase of the day, which recurs in
the Pastoral Epistles (though with i\$etv cts instead of Aa/Setv). It
is not one of our author's favourite expressions, 1 but the phrase
1 Here it is an equivalent for the phrases used in 6 4, 5 ; there is no dis-
tinction between eirlyvueis and yvutrts (deov) any more than in the LXX, and
150 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 26-29.
is partly used by Epictetus in its most general sense (Xafiwv tis
7rapa rrjs </>vcr£a)s p.erpa /ecu Kavovas ets €7riyva)c r ii' rf/s aX-qQeias ktA..,
ii. 20. 21), when upbraiding the wretched academic philosophers
(ot a.Ta\.aiirwpot. 'AKaSrj/xatKOL) for discrediting the senses as organs
of knowledge, instead of using and improving them. All that
renegades can expect (v. 27 ) is <j>op€pdt tis ( = quidam, deepening
the idea with its touch of vagueness) ckSoxt) (a sense coined by
the writer for this term, after his use of i^e^eo-daL in io 13 ) Kpurews,
for they have thrown over the only sacrifice that saves men from
KptVis (9 27 )- This is expanded in a loose 1 reminiscence of Is
26 11 (£,fj\os X-qjx\p€Tai Xabv aTra&evTov, koX vvv irvp tous virevavTiovs
eSeTcu), though the phrase irupos £rj\os recalls Zeph i 19 (3 s ) iv
irvpl i^rjXov avrov KaravaXoiOiqcTeTaL Tracra rj yi). The contemporary
Jewish Apocalypse of Baruch (48 s9 - 40 ) contains a similar threat
to wilful sinners :
"Therefore shall a fire consume their thoughts,
and in flame shall the meditations of their reins be tried ;
for the Judge shall come and will not tarry —
because each of earth's inhabitant knew when he was trans-
gressing."
The penalty for the wilful rejection (aGe-n^aas) of the Mosaic
law 2 was severe (Dt 17 2 " 17 ), but not more severe than the penalty
to be inflicted on renegades from Christianity (vv. 28 " 31 ). The
former penalty was merciless, x w P l s oiKTipjxwi> (to which, at an
early period, /ecu SaKpvuv was added by D, most old Latin texts,
and syr hkl ). It is described in a reminiscence of Dt 17 6 «rt Svalv
fMapTvcriv rj iirl rpicrlv p-dprvaiv airoOaveiTCLL 6 airodvifjaKOiv (i.e. the
apostate who has yielded to idolatry). The witnesses executed
the punishment for the sin of which they had given evidence
(Dt 17 7 , Ac 7 57f -, Jn 8 7 , Sanhedrim 6 4 ), but this is not before the
writer's mind ; lirL with the dative simply means " on the ground
of (the evidence given by)." In ttoo-w SokcItc ktX. (v. 29 ), So/mre
is intercalated as in Aristoph. Acharn. 1 2 (7rws tovt la-ticri p.ov
Sokci? ttjv Kap&iav ;), and Herm. Sim. ix. 28. 8 (et to. Wv-q tovs
8ouA.ous avTwv KoXd£ov(TLV, idv Tts apvrj<Tr]Ta.i tov Kvptov iavrov, Tt
SoKeire Troirjo-ei 6 Kvpios vplv ;). Hoaw (cp. 9 14 ) introduces an
a\r)8eia had been already stamped by Philo (e.g. de Justitia, 6, where the
proselyte is said /ieracao-rds els aX-rjdeiav) as a term for the true religion,
which moulds the life of those who become members of the People. Compare
the study of the phrase by M. Dibelius in NT Studienfiir G. Jjfeinrici (igiq.),
pp. 176-189.
1 Probably it was the awkwardness of f^Xos, coming after irvp6s, which led
to its omission in W. Sah reads simply " the flame of the fire."
2 According to the later rabbinic theory of inspiration, even to assert that
Moses uttered one word of the Torah on his own authority was to despise the
Torah (Sifre 112, on Nu 15 31 ).
X. 29, 30.] RENEGADES 15 1
argument from the less to the greater, which was the first of
Hillel's seven rules for exegesis, and which is similarly used by
Philo in de Fuga, 16, where, after quoting Ex 21 15 , he adds that
Moses here practically denies that there is any pardon for those
who blaspheme God (ci yap 61 tovs 6vr)Tov<i KaK-qyoprjcravTes yovcis
airayovTai 7-77V €7ri Oavdrw, tivos a$iov<s xpr) vop.i£eiv Tip.a)pias tovs
Ttuv oAwv iraripa koX TronqTYjv /3\a(T(pr]p.eiv virop.ivovra'i ;). There
is also a passage in de Spec. Legibus (ii. 254, 255) where Philo
asks, " If a man p.77 7rpoo->;/<ovTcjs o/xrvs is guilty, 71-00-775 d£ios
Ti/xcopias 6 t6v ovtcos ovra 6ebv apvovp,evo<; ; "
Tifiupia originally meant vengeance. Aituptpei. 5e ri/xcopia Kal K6Xa<m" rj
fj.kv yap K(5\a<rts rod irdcrxovros e>e/ca iariv, i] 5k ri/xupla tou ttoiovvtos, Xva
diroirXripudrj (Arist. Rhetoric, i. 10. 11 ; see Cope's Introduction, p. 232).
But it became broadened into the general sense of punishment, and this
obtained in Hellenistic Greek.
The threefold description of what is involved in the sin of
apostasy begins : 6 rbv 6\hv too 0eou KaTaTraTrjo-as, another ex-
pression for the thought of 6 6 , which recalls Zee 12 3 (A.i'0ov
KarairaTovfiivov 77-acav tois eBveaiv' Tras 6 KaTa7ra7w avrrjv £p.7rai£a)v
c/ATraifcT-ai). KaTaTraTciv op/aa was the phrase for breaking oaths
{Iliad, 4 157 ); with a personal object, the verb denotes con-
tempt of the most flagrant kind. Another aspect of the sin is
that a man has thereby Koikoe x vjyr|<rafA6i'os the sacrifice of Jesus ;
his action means that it is no more to him than an ordinary death
("communem," d), instead of a divine sacrifice which makes him
a partaker of the divine fellowship (see p. 145). Where Christ is
rejected, he is first despised ; outward abandonment of him
springs from some inward depreciation or disparagement. The
third aspect, Kal to weCpa rfjs x^P lT °5 ( n °t T0V vofxov Muucrcws)
eku|3puras, suggests that the writer had in mind the language of
Zee 12 10 (iK\€u) . . . Trvevpia ^aptTos Kal oiKTip/xoC), but 7Ti>euu.a
xdpiTos (contrasted here, as in Jn i 17 , with the vo/aos Moruo-ews)
is a periphrasis for Trvevp-a dyiov(6 4 )j xdpts being chosen (4 16 12 15 )
to bring out the personal, gracious nature of the power so wan-
tonly insulted. 2 'Eeuf3pi£eii' is not a LXX term, and it generally
takes the dative. ('E^ u Yiyido-GYj after Tjyirio-du.ei'os is omitted by
A and some MSS of Chrysostom.)
The sombre close (vv. 30 - 31 ) of the warning is a reminder
that the living God punishes renegades. *o|3epoV (v. 31 ) re-echoes
the (pofiepd of v. 27 , and the awful nature of the doom is brought
out by two quotations adapted from the OT. 'Ep.ol Ik&iktio-is,
1 Once in the LXX (Pr 15 23 ) in this sense.
2 In Test. Jud. 18 2 the wvevp-a xap'T-os poured out upon men is the Spirit
as a gracious gift of God. But in He io 29 , as in Eph 4 3u , it is the divine Spirit
wounded or outraged, the active retribution, however, being ascribed not to
the Spirit itself but to God.
152 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 30, 31
eyw avTcuroScoCTw, is the same form of Dt 32 s5 as is quoted in Ro
12 19 ; it reproduces the Hebrew original more closely than the
LXX {ev ^jp-epa 6k8ik^<t«<bs avrcnroSwcra)), perhaps from some
current Greek version, unless the author of Hebrews borrowed
it from Paul. 1 Some of the same authorities as in 8 12 indeed
add, from Ro 12 19 , Xe'yei Ku'pios (K c A D c K L arm Theodoret,
Damasus, etc.). Kpiyel Kupios toc \abv auTou is from Dt 32 s6 . The
thought of the original, in both passages, is God avenging his
people on their foes and championing them, not punishing them ;
but here this fate is assigned to all who put themselves outside
the range of God's mercy in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ ; they fall
under God's retribution. To i^ireaelv els x e ^P a ? ^eoG * s a phrase
used in a very different sense in 2 S 24 14 , Sir 2 18 ; here it means,
to fall into the grasp of the God who punishes the disloyal 2
or rebels against his authority. Thus the tyrant Antiochus is
threatened, in 2 Mac 7 31 , ov jxtj Siacpvyrjs i-as x"/ 301 ? T0 ^ Oeov. As
in 3 12 , £&rros is added to 6eoG to suggest that he is quick and
alive to inflict retribution. The writer is impressively reticent
on the nature of God's Tifiwpia, even more reticent than Plato, in
one of the gravest warnings in Greek literature, the famous
passage in the Leges (904, 905) about the divine 81*77 : TavV^s
tt}s 8ik7)<; ovre o~v fx-q 7TOT6 ovt€ el aAAos aTUY^s yevo/xevos eirev^-qTai
■Keptyeveo-Qai Oewv' rjv Traow SikCjv SiaepepovTw? era^dv re 61 Ta^avrcv
vpewv tc eijevXafieio-daL to irafidirav. ov yap afxeX^drjarrj ttot\ vtt
avTrj<;' o&x ovtw o"/xi»cpos 2>v 8vo~r] Kara to tt)s yi}? /3d0o<;, orS' v{j/r]X6<;
yevofxevos els rbv ovpavov avaTTTrjo~r), Tetcrets ok avTu>v rrpr Trpoo-r)Kovo~av
Tt/itDpiav eir iv6a.Se fxevtuv elre koX ev AtSov oiairopevOeis. Plato
altered the Homeric term 6Y/07 Oeuv to suit his purpose; what
meant "way" or "habit," he turned into a weighty word for
"justice." The alteration is justified from his "preaching"
point of view, and the solemn note of the Greek sage's warning
is that of He io 26f - ; you cannot play fast and loose with God.
Yet, as at 6 9 , so here, the writer swiftly turns from warning to
encouragement, appealing to his readers to do better than he
feared, and appealing to all that was best in them. " Why
throw away the gains of your fine record in the past? You have
not long to wait for your reward. Hold on for a little longer."
This is the theme of vv. 32 " 39 :
1 Paul cites the saying to prove that private Christians need not and must
not take revenge into their own hands, since God is sure to avenge his people
on their adversaries. Which is close to the idea of the original. Our author
uses the text to clinch a warning that God will punish (Kpivei = " punibit," not
"judicabit") his people for defying and deserting him.
2 So the martyr Eleazar protests in 2 Mac 6 28 , as he refuses to save his
life by unworthy compromise : el yap Kal tirl tov irapbvros i^eXovfxai r\\v i£
avOpdiiruiv ri/xupiav, dXXd ras rod iravTOKparopos x e 'P ay °^ Te ffi v °^ Te o-^odavwv
iKtpeu^ofiai.
X. 32, 33.] A FINE RECORD 1 53
82 Recall the for)ner days when, after you were enlightened {<f><i)Ti<jdivTes
as 6 4 ), you endured a hard struggle of suffering, M partly by being held up
yourselves to obloquy and anguish, partly by making common cause with those
who fared in this way ; 84 for you did sympathize with the prisoners, and you
took the confiscation of your own belongings cheerfully, conscious that elsewhere
you had higher, you had lasting possessions. ^ Now do not drop that con-
fidence of yours ; it (rjm, as in 2 s ) carries with it a rich hope of reward.
86 Steady patience is what you need, so that after doing the will of God you
may (like Abraham, 6 15 ) get what you have been promised. & For "in a
little, a vety little" now,
" The Coming One (o, 29 ) will arrive without delay.
88 Meantime my just man shall live on by his faith ;
if he shrinks back, my soul takes no delight in him."
39 We are not the men to shrink back and be lost, but to have faith and so to
win our souls.
The excellent record of these Christians in the past consisted
in their common brotherliness (6 10 ), which is now viewed in the
light of the hardships they had had to endure, soon after they
became Christians. The storm burst on them early; they
weathered it nobly ; why give up the voyage, when it is nearly
done ? It is implied that any trouble at present is nothing to
what they once passed through. 'Ayajjuiivrjo-Keo-Qe 8e -ros irpoTepoi'
Tjfie'pas (v. 32 ) : memory plays a large part in the religious experi-
ence, and is often as here a stimulus. In these earlier days they
had (vv. 32 - 33 ) two equally creditable experiences (tooto \ii\> . . .
touto 8e, a good classical idiom) ; they bore obloquy and hard-
ship manfully themselves, and they also made common cause
with their fellow-sufferers. By saying aOXtjan' TraGrip.dTwt', the
writer means, that the ira6-qp.aTa made the aOVno-is which tested
their powers (2 10 ). *A6\r)<ri<; — the metaphor is athletic, as in 12 1
— came to denote a martyr's death in the early church ; but no
such red significance attaches to it here. Apparently the per-
secution was not pushed to the last extreme (12 4 ); all survived
it. Hence there can be no allusion to the " ludibria " of Nero's
outburst against the Roman Christians, in (v. 33 ) 0eaTpi£6p.eeoi,
which is used in a purely figurative sense (so dearpov in 1 Co 4 9 ),
like eK#£a.Tpi£eiv in Polybius (e.g. iii. 91. 10, SioVep Zp.e\\ov . . .
eKOeoiTpieiv 8k tov<; 7roA.€yuioi>s <pvyop.a)(ovvTa.<;). The meaning is
that they had been held up to public derision, scoffed and
sneered at, accused of crime and vice, unjustly suspected and
denounced. All this had been, the writer knew, a real ordeal,
particularly because the stinging contempt and insults had had
to be borne in the open. "Otciv p.cv yap tis 6vei8i£r]Tcu /ca0' iavrov,
XvTrrjpbv p.h', 7roAA.w o€ 7rAeov, oTav eVi 7ravTwv (Chrysostom). They
had been exposed to 6k€i8io-p.oIs tc kcu 0\i«|/E<rt, taunts and scorn
that tempted one to feel shame (an experience which our author
evidently felt keenly), as well as to wider hardships, both insults
and injuries. All this they had stood manfully. Better still,
154 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 33, 34.
their personal troubles had not rendered them indisposed to
care for their fellow-sufferers, tw outws {i.e. in the Tradrj/xaTa)
dcacrTpe4)0(xeVcji' (13 18 ). They exhibited the virtue of practical
sympathy, urged in 13 3 , at any risk or cost to themselves (koi^gWi
. . . yevt]QivTe<s with the genitive, as in LXX of Pr 28 14 , Is i 23 ).
The ideas of v. 33 are now (v. 34 ) taken up in the reverse order
(as in 5 1 " 7 ). Kal yap tols Seapviois aweTra0r)<Ta,Te, imprisonment
being for some a form of their TraOrjjxaTa. Christians in prison
had to be visited and fed by their fellow-members. For o-ujx-n-aGeic
(cp. 4 15 ) as between man and man, see Test. Sym. 3 6 koI \olttov
crvfJLTraOel tw <p6ovovp.£v(i> : Test. Benj. 4 4 tu acrOevovvTi o-vp.Trdo-\€i :
Ign. Rom. 6 4 avfj.Tra6eiT0i (xol : and the saying which is quoted
in Meineke's Frag. Comic. Graec. iv. 52, Ik tov -rraOzZv yiyvwo-Ke
Kal to avfXTradelv' Kal arol yap dAAos o-Vfnra8rjo-£Tai irada>v. They
had also borne their own losses with more than equanimity, 1
with actual gladness (p.e-rd x a P<*s, the same thought as in Ro 5 s ,
though differently worked out), y^uxTKovres (with accus. and
infinitive) e'x ei1 ' eau-rou's ( = vfxa<s, which is actually read here by
Cosmas Indicopleustes, 348a ; eau-rWs is not emphatic any more
than kavTwv in v. 25 ) Kpeioxrofa (a favourite term of the author)
uTmp£ii> (Ac 2 35 ) Kal p.eVoucrai' (13 14 , the thought of Mt 6 20 ). TV
dpTrayV twi' uizapypvruiv upvcoy (cp. Polybius, iv. 17. 4, d/)7rayas
v-rrapxpvToiv) implies that their own property had been either
confiscated by the authorities or plundered in some mob-riot.
Note the paronomasia of vTrapypvrtav and v-n-ap^iv, and the place
of this loss in the list of human evils as described in the Laches,
195 E (ctre tw Qavaros €tT€ vocros etre a.Troj3o\r} xpr)p.aT(i>v l<rrai).
There is no question of retaliation ; the primitive Christians whom the
author has in view had no means of returning injuries for injuries, or even
of claiming redress. Thus the problem raised and solved by contemporary
moralists does not present itself to the writer; he does not argue, as, e.g.,
Maximus of Tyre did in the next century (Dissert ii.), that the good man
should treat the loss of property as a trifle, and despise the futile attempts of
his enemies to injure him thus, the soul or real self being beyond the reach
of such evil-doers. The tone is rather that of Tob 4 21 [/xr] <poJ3ov, ircuftlov, 6ti
iTTTUxevcraixei'' inrdpxet. vol iroWa, e&v (f>o(3r]6ris rbv diov ktX. ), except that
our author notes the glow (fMera. x^pas) of an enthusiastic unworldliness,
which was more than any Stoic resignation or even any quiet acquiescence
in providence; he suggests in eavrovs that, while others might seize and hold
their property, they themselves had a possession of which no one could rob
them. Seneca (Ep. ix. 18-19) quotes the famous reply of the philosophic
Stilpo to Demetrius Poliorketes, who asked him, after the siege and sack of
Megara, if he had lost anythiog in the widespread ruin, Stilpo answered
that he had suffered no loss ; " omnia bona mecum sunt." That is, Seneca
explains, he did not consider anything as " good " which could be taken from
him. This helps to illustrate what the author of Upbs 'Efipalovs means. As
Epictetus put it, there are more losses than the loss of property (ii. 10. 14,
1 This is not conveyed in irpocredi^aade, which here, as in II 35 , simply
means "accepted," not "welcomed."
X. 34, 35.] PERSECUTION 155
<kX\a Set ce Kipfia airoKiaai, Xva faniuidfis, AXkov < 5' > oiidevbs dirdiXeta fij/uot
rbv dvdpwirop ;). A similar view pervades the fine homiletic misinterpretation
of Dt 6 B in Berachoth g 5 "Man is bound to bless [God] for evil as for
good, for it is said, Thou shall love Jakweh thy God -with all thy heart and
with all thy soul and with all thy strength. With all thy heart means, with
both yetzers, the good and the bad alike : with all thy soul means, even if he
deprive thee of thy soul : with all thy strength means, with all thy posses-
sions." A similar view is cited in Sifre 32. Apollonius, in the last quarter
of the second century, declares : " We do not resent having our goods taken
from us, because we know that, whether wc live or die, we are the Lord's "
(Conybeare, Monuments of Early Christianity, p. 44).
No persecution known to us in the primitive church answers
to the data of this passage. But some sidelights are thrown upon
it by Philo's vivid account of the earlier anti-Semite riots in
Alexandria. He notes that even those who sympathized with
the persecuted were punished : w 8' ws a\6u)<s TreirovOoTwv </u'A.oi
Kal o-vyyevets, on p.6vov Tat? w irpoo-qKOVTOiv crvLLcpopais o~vvqK-
yrjo-av, air-qyovro, efxacrriyovvTO, irpo^t^ovTO, kou yntTa 7rao-as ras
at/ctas, oo~as iBvvaro xioprjo-at. to. o-w/xara avrols, f} TcAevTaia /ecu
ecbeSpos Ttfjunpia crravpos rjv {in Flaccum, 7 : n. b. neither here
nor in n 35f - does the author of ILoos 'EfipaLovs mention the cross
as a punishment for sufferers). Philo {ibid. 9) continues : 7revia
yakzirhv p.ev, /cal fidXiad' orav /caTao-Keva^TjTai 7rpos i\6pwv, eXarrov
Se rrjs ets to. aoifxara v/Jpecos, kolv rj Ppa^vraTy]. He repeats this
(10), telling how Flaccus maltreated Jews who had been already
Stripped of their property, iva ol fiev v-irop.tvuo-1 Sir-ras o-iyxcbopas,
■jreviav bfxov Kal tt]v ev tol<s 0-wp.ao-iv vj3piv, Kal ol Likv SpoJVTCS,
&o"jrep ev Tots dearpLKOi'i iu't<.ois KadvirepKpivovTO tov<s Tracr^ovTas.
Three items of textual corruption occur in v. 84 . (a) Seo-jxiois (p 13 A D* H
33. 104. 241. 424**. 635. 1245. 1288. 1739. 1908. 1912. 2005 r vg syr hkI
boh arm Chrys. ) was eventually corrupted into dea/xois {fJ-ov) in N D° ^ 256.
1288* etc. vt eth Clem. Orig.), a misspelling (i.e. 5ecr/xo?s) which, with fxov
added to make sense, contributed to the impression that Paul had written
the epistle (Ph I 7, 15f< , Col 4 18 ). Compare the text implied in the (Pelagian ?)
prologue to Paul's epp. in vg : "nam et vinctis compassi estis, et rapinam
bonorum vestrorum cum gaudio suscepistis."
(d) lavToiJS (p 13 n A H lat boh Clem. Orig. etc.) suffered in the course of
transmission ; it was either omitted (by C) or altered into eavrols (D K L 4',
etc., Chrys.) or iv eavroh (i. 467. 489. 642. 920. 937. 1867. 1873), the dative
being an attempt to bring out the idea that they had in their own religious
personalities a possession beyond the reach of harm and loss, an idea pushed
by some editors even into eavrom, but too subtle for the context.
(c) a>irap|iv was eventually defined by the addition of Iv (tois) ovpavois
(from Ph 3 20 ?) in x° D° H** * 6. 203. 326. 506. 1288. 1739 syr arm Chrys.
etc.
The reminder of vv. 32-34 is now ( 35 - 39 ) pressed home. Mr)
d.Tro|3d\r|Te ouv ttjv irapprjaiav up.wv, as evinced in p.eT& x a pSs • • •
yivwo-Korres ktX. The phrase occurs in Dio Chrys. Oral. 34 s9
(SeSoiKa p.i] TtAeojs a.Troj3d\r)Te rrjv Trapprjariuv) and elsewhere in the
156 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 35, 36.
sense of losing courage, but irapp-qo-La. retains its special force
C3 6 ) here, and ebro/SaAAciv is the opposite of Karex £iv (" nolite
itaque amittere," vg). The Trapprja-Ca is to be maintained, ^ns
Ixei jieyciXT)!' fno-OcnroSoo-icH' (as 11 26 ), it is so sure of bringing
its reward in the bliss promised by God to cheerful loyalty.
Compare the saying of the contemporary rabbi Tarphon : " faith-
ful is the Master of thy work, who will pay thee the reward of
thy work, and know thou that the recompense of the reward of
the righteous is for the time to come " (Pirke Aboth 2 19 ).
Epictetus makes a similar appeal, in iv. 3. 3 f., not to throw away all that
one has gained in character by failing to maintain one's philosophical
principles when one has suffered some loss of property. When you lose any
outward possession, recollect what you gain instead of it (tL dvr airov
irepnroi-f]) ; otherwise, you imperil the results of all your past conscientiousness
(S<ra vvv 7rpotr^x«'S (reavraj, fitWeis 4kx^" diravra Tavra Kal dvarpiiretv). And
it takes so little to do this ; a mere swerve from reasonable principle (/iu/cpas
&Tro<TTpo<pT)s rod \670u), a slight drowsiness, and all is lost (dirrjXdev Trdvra to.
fi^XP 1 p vv ffweiKeypJva). No outward possession is worth having, Epictetus
continues, if it means that one ceases to be free, to be God's friend, to serve
God willingly. I must not set my heart on anything else ; God does not
allow that, for if He had chosen, He would have made such outward goods
good for me (dyadd irewot.r)Kei avrd av i/xol). Maximus of Tyre again argued
that while, for example, men might be willing to endure pain and discomfort
for the sake and hope of regaining health, " if you take away the hope of good
to come, you also take away the power of enduring present ills " (el dcpeXois
Tiva iXirlda rwv /j.{\\ovtwi> dyaddv, d^cup^creis Kal rivd a'ipeaiv t&v irapdi/Twv
KaKQv, Diss, xxxiii).
To retain the Christian irappTjo-ia means still uiropiyeie, no
longer perhaps in the earlier sense (uirepeiVaTe, v. 82 ), and yet some-
times what has to be borne is harder, for sensitive people, than
any actual loss. Such obedience to the will of God assumes
many phases, from endurance of suffering to sheer waiting, and
the latter is now urged (v. 36 ). 'Yirop.oi'fjs yap e'x eTe XP €ia|/ (5 12 ) "" (i
to GArjpa tou 0eou Troi^o-arTes (suggested by io 7 " 9 ) Kop.urncr0€ rr)v
tTra.YY^a*' (6 12 io 23 ). "Though the purpose of v7ro(iovrj is
contained in the clause Iva . . . eVayyeXiav, yet the function of
this clause in the sentence is not telic. Its office is not to
express the purpose of the principal clause, but to set forth a
result (conceived, not actual) of which the possesion of vttojxovti
is the necessary condition " (Burton, NT Moods and Tenses,
p. 93). ^ivofxovri and v-rrofxivetv echo through this passage and
12 1 - 7 , the idea of tenacity being expressed in io 38 -ii 40 by ttio-tis.
'Yiro/xovrj here as in the LXX (cp. Diat. 3548a-*:) implies the
conviction of "hope that the evil endured will be either remedied
or proved to be no evil." KopiVnaOe does not mean to get back
or recover, nor to gather in, but simply as in the K.oivr\ to receive,
to get what has been promised (ttjc en-ayY"^ 1 ' "') rather than to
get it as our due (which is the idea of ix«r6(nro?>o<riav), though
X. 36-38.] THE PATIENCE OF HOPE 1 57
what is promised is in one sense our due, since the promise can
only be fulfilled for those who carry out its conditions (6 10 ). And
it will soon be fulfilled. "Have patience; it is not long now."
Again he clinches his appeal with an OT word, this time from the
prophets (w. 37 - 38 ). *Eti yap (om. p 13 ) p-ucpd^ (sc. lo-riv) ocroe oaov.
In de mutat. nomin. 44, Philo comments upon the aptness and
significance of the word vai in the promise of Gn 17 19 (rl yap
evTrpeirearepov rj rayaOa. €7riveu€iv fow kcll Ta^e'ws 6yu.oA.oyeiv ;). Our
author has a similar idea in mind, though he is eschatological, as
Philo is not. "OtToy 00-ov is a variant in D (on Lk 5 3 ) for oAiyov.
The phrase occurs in Aristoph. Wasps, 213 (tl ovk a7r€Koip.rj6rjo-av
oaov 00-ov o-tlXtjv), and elsewhere, but here it is a reminiscence of
the LXX of Is 26 20 (p.LKp6v 00-ov 00-ov). Hence, although paicpdv
00-oe is also used, as by Philo, the omission of the second 00-ov in
the text of Hebrews by some cursives (e.g. 6. 181. 326. 1836)
and Eusebius is unjustified. The words serve to introduce the
real citation, apparently suggested by the term u-n-opovTjs (v. 36 ),
from Hab 2 3 - 4 £<xv vo-Tfprjo-r], vTr6p,ewov avro'v, on cp^d/xevos fj£ei
/cat ov fxi] ^povio-Tj' iav VTroo-T€i\rjTai, ovk evSoKtl rj ^v\rj p.ov iv avrtL'
6 Se 8ucaios i< 7rto-T€ws /xov £r)creTai, especially as the LXX makes
the object of patient hope not the fulfilment of the vision, i.e.
the speedy downfall of the foreign power, but either messiah
or God. (a) The author of Hebrews further adds 6 to ipxofievos,
applying the words to Christ ; (b) changes ov jitj xpoiacT] into 00
xpoyet : 1 (c) reverses the order of the last two clauses, and (d)
shifts p.ou in front of Ik mo-Tews, as in the A text of the LXX.
In the MSS of Hebrews, p.ov is entirely omitted by p 13 D H K
LPW cop eth Chrys. etc., to conform the text to the Pauline
quotation (Ro i 17 , Gal 3 11 ), while the original LXX text, with
p-ov after 7ricrreci)?, is preserved in D* d syr pesh hkl etc. This text,
or at any rate its Hebrew original, meant that the just man (i.e.
the Israelite) lived by God being faithful to his covenant with
the nation. In ripos 'Eppatous the idea is that the just man of
God is to live by his own mcms or loyalty, as he holds on and
holds out till the end, timidity meaning dirwXeia (v. 39 ), while the
far) promised by God as the reward of human loyalty is the
outcome of ttlo-tU (Ik moreus). But our author is interested in
Trio-Td rather than in far). The latter is not one of his categories,
in the sense of eternal life ; this idea he prefers to express
otherwise. What he quotes the verse for is its combination of
God's speedy recompense and of the stress on human Trams,
which he proceeds to develop at length. The note struck in 6
8e Sikcuos p.ou also echoes on and on through the following
passage (n 4 "AfteX . . . ep.apTup^0T] cti/ai Sikcuos, ii 7 Nwe . . .
1 This second future, or xp° v ^ ce h P 13 ** D*, is read by some editors {e.g.
Tregelles, W-H, B. Weiss).
158 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [X. 38-XI. 1.
tt}s kcito. morii' 8ikcuoowt]S, 1 1 33 r)pydoracTO Sikcuoo-uVtji', 12 11 icap-Troy
diroSiSuxrii' Sikcuoo-uVyjs, 1 2 23 weufAao-i SiKOuwi' T€Te\ei<i)juieV(i)i'). The
aim of (c) was to make it clear, as it is not clear in the LXX,
that the subject of u"n-ooT€iXT]Tai was 6 Sikcuos, and also to make
the warning against apostasy the climax. Kal eav u-n-oo-TeiXTjTcu —
not simply in fear (as, e.g., Dem. adv. Pant. 630, fxrjSev viroa-TtX-
Xo/xevov ixrjS 1 alaxyvofxevov), but in the fear which makes men (cp.
Gal 2 12 ) withdraw from their duty or abandon their convictions —
ouk euSoicet f\ ^ux^ (a° u *" cwtw. it is a fresh proof of the freedom
which the writer uses, that he refers these last seven words to
God as the speaker ; in Habakkuk the words are uttered by the
prophet himself. Then, with a ringing, rallying note, he expresses
himself confident about the issue. c Hp.eIs 8e ouk iafikv uTroaToXtjs
(predicate genitive, as in 12 11 , unless dVSpe? or Ik is supplied) els
dirwXeiai', dXXd moreus €19 irepiiroiTjaii' *J*uxf]S ( = ^creTai, V. 38 ).
neptTToirjo-i? occurs three times in the LXX (2 Ch 14 13 , Hag 2 9 ,
Mai 3 17 ) and several times in the NT, but never with ^uxtjs,
though the exact phrase was known to classical Greek as an
equivalent for saving one's own life. 'YttootoAt/, its antithesis,
which in Jos. B.J. ii. 277 means dissimulation, has this new
sense stamped on it, after uTrooTeiXTjTai.
The exhortation is renewed in i2 lf -, but only after a long
paean on moris, with historical illustrations, to prove that 7rt<rns
has always meant hope and patience for loyal members of the
People (n 1 " 40 ). The historical r^sumd (n 3-40 ), by which the
writer seeks to kindle the imagination and conscience of his
readers, is prefaced by a brief introduction (ii 1-8 ) :
1 Now faith means we are confident of what we hope for, convinced of what
we do not see. ^ It was for this that the men of old won their record. 3 It
is by faith we understand that the world was fashioned by the word of God,
and thus the visible was made out of the invisible.
Calvin rightly protested against any division here, as an in-
terruption to the thought : " quisquis hie fecit initium capitis
undecimi, perperam contextum abrupit." The following argu-
ment of ii 1 " 40 flows directly out of io 35 " 39 : ifjLOfxovT] is justified
and sustained by 7rt'o-Tis, and we have now a Aoyos ira.pa.K\y)crtu><;
On jxifx-qTal tu>v Sid 7ricrT€toS Kal fx.aKpoOvfxia'i KXiqpovOfjLOvvTOiv rds
€7rayyeXtas (6 12 ). Hitherto the only historical characters who
have been mentioned have been Abraham, Melchizedek, Moses,
Aaron, and Joshua; and Abraham alone has been mentioned
for his Trams ; now a long list of heroes and heroines of 7ricrrei
is put forward, from Abel to the Maccabean martyrs. But first
(vv. 1 " 3 ) a general word on faith. "Eoth' 8e moris ktX. (v. 1 ). It
is needless to put a comma after 7uo-tis, i.e., " there is such a
thing as faith, faith really exists." Ei/u at the beginning of a
XI. 1.] WHAT FAITH MEANS 159
sentence does not necessarily carry this meaning ; cp. e.g. Wis
7 1 elfii fiev Kayoy 0vt)t6<;, Lk 8 11 ecrriv 8k atrj-77 rj irapafioXrj (Jn 2 I 25
and i Jn 5 17 etc.). "Earn/ here is simply the copula, mans being
the subject, and eX-ju^ou-ecuf uiroaTacris the predicate. This turn
of phrase is common in Philo, who puts Icrn first in descriptions
or definitions (e.g. Leg. Allegor. iii. 75, !<rrt 8k arevayfi-bs a<f>o8pa
Kal iiriTerafAevr) Xvirrj : quod deus immut. 19, eori 8k cv^r/ fj.kv
alrrjo-is ayaOwv Trapb. dtov ktA.). Needless difficulties have been
raised about what follows. 'Yiroaracris is to be understood in the
sense of 3 14 " une assurance certaine " (Menegoz) ; " faith is a
sure confidence of thynges which are hoped for, and a certaynetie
of thynges which are not seyne" (Tyndale), the opposite of
vTTOCTToXrj. In the parallel clause, Trpdyu.aTWi' eXeyxos ou j3Xeiro-
pevuv (which in Attic Greek would have been £>v dv ns //.?) bpa),
grammatically -7rpa.y1xa.Twv might go with eXTn,£ou.eVw>/ instead of
with pXeirofxeVwi', for the sake of emphasis (so Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, von Soden, etc.) ; the sense would be unaffected,
but the balance of the rhythm would be upset. "EXeyxos is used
in a fresh sense, as the subjective " conviction " (the English
word has acquired the same double sense as the Greek); as
Euthymius said, it is an equivalent for Trpay/xdrtov dopdrwv TrXrjpo-
(popia. (so syr arm eth). The writer could find no Greek term
for the idea, and therefore struck out a fresh application for
eXeyxos. As for eXm^oneVwe . . . ou pXcirojJieVwv' (o yap /SXeVet tis,
tL IXiri^eL ; et 8k o ov fiXtiro/xev iXTTi^ofiev 8l V7to/xovt}<; dTT€K8e^6fj.e6a,
Ro 8 24 - 25 ), the unseen realities of which faith is confident are
almost entirely in the future as promised by God, though, as the
sequel shows, to. ou pXeird/jieca (e.g. vv. 3, 7 - 8 - 27 ) are not precisely
the same as Ta iX-m(6fjt.eva. It cannot be too emphatically
pointed out that the writer did not mean to say : (a) that faith
gave substance or reality to unseen hopes, though this is the
interpretation of the Greek fathers (Chrysostom, for example,
argues : en-ciS?) ra lv eXirt'St dvv7rocrTaTa etvat 8okc7, rj 7rt'(TTts vtto-
(TTacnv avTOis \apL^rai' p.dXXov 8k ov \api^€TaL dXA' avro ecrrtv
ovo-ia airlLv). When the writer declares that it is by faith we
understand that the world was created, he does not mean that
faith imparts reality to the creation ; nor, when he says, e.g., the
patriarchs lived in the expectation of a celestial Fatherland,
that they thereby made this more real to themselves. No doubt
this was true in a sense; but the author's point is that just
because these objects of hope were real, because, e.g., God had
prepared for them a City, therefore they were justified in having
faith. It is faith as the reflex of eternal realities or rewards
promised by God which is fundamental in this chapter, the faith
by which a good man lives, (b) Similarly, faith is not the eXeyxos
of things unseen in the sense of " proof," which could only mean
l6o THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 1. .
that it tests, or rather attests, their reality. The existence of
human faith no doubt proves that there is some unseen object
which calls it out, but the writer wishes to show, not the reality
of these unseen ends of God — he assumes these — but the fact
and force of believing in them with absolute confidence. Such
erroneous interpretations arise out of the notion that the writer
is giving an abstract definition of mcms, whereas he is describing
it, in view of what follows, as an active conviction which moves
and moulds human conduct. The happiest description of it is,
" seeing Him who is invisible " (v. 27 ) ; and this idea is applied
widely ; sometimes it is belief in God as against the world and its
forces, particularly the forces of human injustice or of death,
sometimes belief in the spirit as against the senses, sometimes
again (and this is prominent in n 5f -) belief in the future as
against the present.
In the papyri {e.g. in OP. ii. pp. 153, 176, where in the plural it="the
whole body of documents bearing on the ownership of a person's property . . .
deposited in the archives, and forming the evidence of ownership ") vtt6o--
Tacris means occasionally the entire collection of title-deeds by which a man
establishes his right to some property (cp. Moulton in Manchester Theological
Essays, i. 174; Expositor, Dec. 1903, pp. 438 f.); but while this might
suggest the metaphor, the metaphor means "confident assurance." The
original sense of substance or reality, as in the de Mundo, 4 (crvWr)pdrjP de tQiv
hi dipt (pavTacr/xdruiv to. pAv 4<tti kclt e'/A<pa<Tiv ra de ko.0' inrdiXTacnv), survives
in Dante's interpretation {Paradiso, xxiv. 61 f. ). He quotes the words as a
definition of faith :
" Fede e sustanzia di cose sperate,
ed argumento delle non parventi,"
adding that he understands this to be its "quidity"or essence. But the
notion that faith imparts a real existence to its object is read into the text.
Faith as virdaraais is "realization" of the unseen, but "realization" only in
our popular, psychological sense of the term. The legal or logical sense of
€\€7x°5> as P r °of (in classical Greek and elsewhere, e.g. Jos. BJ. iv. 5. 4,
r)v 5' oiir HXeyxos ns rdv Karr/yopov/xivuv, otire TeKfir)pi.ov) is out of place
here. The existence of human faith is in one sense a proof that an invisible
order exists, which can alone explain men acting as they do ev Trio-ret. But
the writer assumes that, and declares that ttIcttis lives and moves in the
steady light of the unseen realities. The sense of " test," as in Epictetus,
iii. 10. II (ivddd' 6 i:\eyxos rod Trpdy/xaros, 77 doKifiacria rod <pi\o<TO(j)ovi'Tos),
is as impossible here as that of "rebuke"; the force of tt/otis in n 3 " 40
rests on its subjective sense as an inner conviction, which forms a motive for
human life, and this determines the meaning of virdaracns and fkeyxos as
applied to it in the introductory description.
This connexion of faith with the future is emphasized by
Philo in de Migratione Abrahami, 9, commenting on Gn 12 1 r)v
aoi 8et£a>. It is Sei^to, not SeUvvpn, he points out — eh fxaprvpCav
7rto~T€ws -qv iTTLCTTevcrev r) if/v^r) 6ew, ovk e/c twv a.7TOTe\ecrfAa.T0)v
lT7lhi.LKVVp.ivri TO CU^ttpiCTTOJ', dAX' Ik TTpoaSoKias TWV p.e\\0VT(i)V
. . . vop.icra.cra r)Br/ Trapetvou ra. p.r/ Trapovra 01a. tyjv tov vTrocr\o-
XI. 1-3.] FAITH AND CREATION l6l
ftevov PefiaioTrjTa. ttIvtiv [cp. He IO 23 ], aya8bv reXeiov, dOXov
cvprjrai. Faith thus relies upon God's promise and eagerly ex-
pects what is to come ; indeed it lives for and in the future.
So our writer uses mores, almost as Paul used eX-iris (psycho-
logically the two being often indistinguishable). Nor is this maris
a novelty in our religion (v. 2 ), he adds, iv tcw'ty] yap ep,apTuprj0rjcrav
(7 8 ) 01 Trpea|3uTepoi. 'Ei/=oia (Taunts) as in V 6 16 9 22 io 10 ; Si'
rjs epapTupi]0T] (v. 4 ), papTupr]0e'rres Sid rfjs iriorecus (v. 39 ). Oi
irpeoPuTepoi ( = ot irarepes, i 1 ) never bears this exact sense else-
where in the NT, the nearest 1 parallel being Mt i5 2 = Mk 7 3 - 5
(ttjv Trapd8o<TLV tujv irpecrfivTepwv). Philo (de Abrahamo 46),
indeed, noting that Abraham the man of faith is the first man
called 7rpecr/?irrepo9 in scripture (Gn 24 1 ), reflects that this is
significant ; 6 ydp akyjdeiq. ir pea (Svt epos ovk iv p.rjKei ^poVouv dAA' iv
€7rcuv€T(3 /cat rcXeta) (3itp Oewpelrat.. Aged worldly people can only
be called longlived children, t6v 8e <ppovrjo-etos kol\ crocpias koI rrjs
7rpos Oebv mtrrecos ipao~8evTa Aeyoi tis av ivSiKios elvai 7rpeo-/3vTepov.
But our author weaves no such fancies round the word, though
he probably understood the term in an honorific sense (cp.
Philo, de Sobrietate, 4, TrpecrfivTepov . . . tov yepois kou Ttp.r)s d£iov
ovo/i.a£ei). For ep-apTuprjOrjaai' in this sense of getting a good
report, cp. B. Latyschev's Inscript. Antiquae Orae Septent. i.
2I 26f. lp.apTvprj6r) tol>5 virep cpiAias kwovvovs . . . irapafioXevo-d-
pevos : Syll. 366 28 (i A.D.) apxiTexTovas p.apTvpr)6 'evTas viro ttj<s
otp.voTa.Tris [fiov\r)s], and the instances quoted in Deissmann's
Bible Studies (265).
Before describing the scriptural record of the irpeo-0uTepoi,
however, the writer pauses to point out the supreme proof of
ttiotis as •jrpayp.dTwv' eXeyxos ou pXeirop.eVaii'. The very world
within which they showed their faith and within which we are to
show our faith, was the outcome of what is invisible (v. 3 ), and
this conviction itself is an act of faith, ru'cn-ei voo\ip.ev (cp.
Ro i 20 : "vociv is in Hellenistic Greek the current word for the
apprehension of the divine in nature," A. T. Goodrick on Wis
I3 4 ) KarrjpTiaGcu (of creation, Ps 73 16 cru KOT-qpTLau) rjXiov ko.1
o-zXrjvrjv) tous alums (i 2 ) p^pan 0eou (the divine fiat here), eis
(with consecutive infinitive) t6 p,rj Ik <\>o.\.vo\i.iv<av t6 ^\e-n6p.evov
yeyo^eVai (perfect of permanence). The firj goes with <pa.Lvop.evwv,
but is thrown before the preposition as, e.g., in Ac i 5 oi peTa
7roXXds Tairras r/p.epa<; (according to a familiar classical con-
struction, Blass, § 433. 3). 2 Faith always answers to revelation,
1 W. Brandt (Judische Reinheitslehre und ihre Beschreibung in den
Evangelien, 19 10, pp. 2, 3) thinks that this expression might apply to the
more recent teachers as well as to the ancient authorities.
2 In 2 Mac 7 28 ok e| 6vtuv iiroL-qcrev avra 6 debs (A), the ovk goes with
the verb.
II
1 62 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 1-3.
and creation is the first revelation of God to man. Creation by
the fiat of God was the orthodox doctrine of Judaism, and
anyone who read the OT would accept it as the one theory
about the origin of the world (cp. e.g. the description of God in
the Mechilta, 33^, on Ex 14 31 etc. as "He who spoke and the
world was," D^iyn iTTTl \QW and Apoc. Bar. 14 17 : "when of old
' T . TT .»- TV , ft
there was no world with its inhabitants, Thou didst devise and
speak with a word, and forthwith the works of creation stood
before Thee"). But the explicitness of this sentence about
creation out of what is invisible, suggests that the writer had
other views in mind, which he desired to repudiate. Possibly
Greek theories like those hinted at in Wis io 17 about the world 1
being created e£ ap.6p<pov vA^s, or the statement in the de
aeternitate mundi, 2, where Philo declares Ik tov /177 ovtos ouSev
yiVtTai, quoting Empedocles to this effect, though elsewhere Philo
does agree that the world was made out of nothing, as, e.g., in the
de Somniis, i. 1 3 (6 6eo<i ra travra ycvvT/cras ov /xovov eis TOvp.<pav\<s
rjyayei/ dAAa /cat a irporepov ovk yjv eTroirjcrev, ov 8r)p.t.ovpy6s p.6vov
ik\a kclI KTiWqs auros tov, cp. also Apoc. Bar. 21 4 : "O Thou
. . . that hast called from the beginning of the world that which
did not yet exist," and Slav. En. 24 2 : " I will tell thee now what
things I created from the non-existent, and what visible things
from the invisible"). What the pj c}>aii'6p.€i'a were, our author
does not suggest. R. Akiba is said to have applied the words
of Ps 10 1 7 to anyone who rashly speculated on the original
material of the world. Our author does not speculate ; it is
very doubtful if he intends (Windisch, M'Neill) to agree with
Philo's idea (in the de opificio Mundi, 16, de confus. ling. 34) of the
c/>atvd/xevos ovro% Koo-p.0% being modelled on the dcrioju.aTos na\
votjtos or archetypal ideas, for the language of 8 5 is insufficient
to bear the weight of this inference.
To take els tc» . . . 7€Yove'vai as final, is a forced construction. The
phrase does not describe the motive of KaTijprtadai, and if the writer had
meant, "so that we might know the seen came from the unseen," 2 he would
have written this, instead of allowing the vital words might know to be
supplied.
The roll-call of the irp6<rPuT€poi (vv. 4f ) opens with Abel and
Enoch, two men who showed their 71-to-Tis before the deluge
(vv. 4 ' 6 ). One was murdered, the other, as the story went, never
died ; and the writer uses both tales to illustrate his point about
7TIOTIS.
1 LXX of Gn I 2 ri dt yij f)t> a.6paros ical dKaracrKeiWTos.
2 At an early period rb fiXeiroiievov was altered into ret /SXexi/teva
(DKL*6. 104. 218. 326. 1288. r vg syr arm), to conform with the previous
plurals pXeiro/jitvwv and (paivo/xtvuv.
XI. 4.] THE FAITH OF ABEL 1 63
* It was by faith (irlorei, the rhetorical anaphora repeated throughout the
section) that Abel offered God a richer sacrifice than Cain did, and thus (hi
t5s, sc. irlffrem) won from God the record of being "just," on the score of
what he gave ; he died, but by his faith he is speaking to us still, 5 It was
by faith that Enoch was taken to heaven, so that he never died ("he was not
overtaken by death, for God had taken him away "). For before he was taken to
heaven, his record was that " he had satisfied God"; 6 and apart from faith it
is impossible (ahwarov, sc. tan) " to satisfy him," for the man who draws near
to God must believe that he exists, and that he does reward those who seek him.
The faith of Abel and of Enoch is not moris eXm^o/ieVwy,
which is not introduced till v. 7 . In 4 Mac i6 20f - the illustrations
of steadfast faith are (a) Abraham sacrificing Isaac, (b) Daniel in
the den of lions, and (c) the three men in the fiery furnace ; but
in i8 llf - the list of noble sufferers includes (a) Abel, (b) Isaac,
(c) Joseph in prison, (d) Phinehas, (e) the three men in the fiery
furnace, and (/) Daniel. Sirach's eulogy of famous men in
Israel (44-50) has a wider sweep : Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, Joshua, Caleb, the judges,
Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Josiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, the twelve prophets, Zerubbabel, Joshua
the son of Josedek, Nehemiah, and the highpriest Simon (i.e.
down to the second century B.C.).
The first illustration (v. 4 ) is much less natural than most of
those that follow. In the story of Gn 4 4 * 8 , lir&ev 6 8e6<s brl *A/3eX
Kal i-rrl tois Swpois airov. But why God disregarded Cain's sacri-
fice and preferred Abel's, our author does not explain. Josephus
(Ant. i. 54) thought that an offering of milk and animals was
more acceptable to God as being natural (tois avTo/xai-ois koI Kara.
(fiva-Lv yeyovdo-i) than Cain's cereal offering, which was wrung out
of the ground by a covetous man ; our author simply argues
that the irXeiwv dvcria of Abel at the very dawn of history was
prompted by faith. He does not enter into the nature of" this
irXeiom (in sense of Mt 6 25 or Mk 12 43 f) xw a a ^ T V V tttw^
7rA.€iov 7ravTwv fiefiXirjKw) Qudiav impel (as in i 4 ) Kd'iv, offered at
the first act of worship recorded in scripture. What seems to
be implied is that faith must inspire any worship that is to
be acceptable to God from anyone who is to be God's
SiKaios (io 38 ). Josephus held that Abel St/caioo-w^s iTri/xeXciTo,
the blood of "A/3eA tov BiKatov is noted in Mt 23 s5 , and the
Genesis-words IttiScv 6 0eos are here expanded by our author
into cp.apTupr]8r| el^ai SiKaios. Note the practical equivalence of
Swpa and Ovaia, as already in 5 1 etc. There is nothing in Upos
'Efipaiovs like Philo's effort (Quaest. in Gen. 4 4 ) to distinguish
between Swpa and Ovarian as follows : 6 fxiv 6vu>v eViStaipei, t6 fJLev
ai/j.a tc3 (3w/j.w irpo)(£o>v, to. Se Kpe'a otfcaSe ko/jli^wv' 6 St Swpovyaevos
oAov eoLK€ 7rapa^cop€iv t<3 \a/x(3dvovTL' 6 fxlv ovv (piAavTOS Siavo/xtus
otos 6 Katv, 6 8e <piXd0£os Swp^Tui otov 6 "A/ScX.
164 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 4.
n\ctova: of the conjectural emendations, IIIONA and HAIONA (Cobet,
Vollgraff ), the latter is favoured by Justin's reference in Dial. 29 (evddicqcre
yap teal els to. Hdvr], /cat t&s dvcrias ijSiov Trap' r)filv 7) irap' vixQiv \afxj3dvei' rls
otv in fiol irepiTOfj.rjs \670s, vtrb tov deou /xapTvpTjOivn;), and is admitted into
the text by Baljon and Blass (so Maynard in Exp. 1 vii. 164 f., who infers
from fxaprvprjOivTi that Justin knew Ilpds 'E/Jpcu'ous, the original text of the
latter being avrip tou Oeov). In Demosth. Prooem. 23, ■fjSiov has been cor-
rupted into irKtiov.
In what follows, (a) the original text (u.apTupourros . . . au-rw
tou 0eou) is preserved in p 13 Clem. (om. ™ 6ew). (b) avT<3 then
became avTov under the influence of the LXX, and t<3 6eG> was
inserted after irpoo-rjveyKe to complete the sense (N c D c K L P
r vg syr boh arm Orig. Chrys. etc.). Finally, (c) tov Oeov became
assimilated to the preceding t<2 OeiZ, and p.apTvpovvTo<s . . . avrov
t<5 Oew (N* A D* 33. 104. 326. 131 1. 1836. eth) became current,
as though Abel witnessed to God, instead of God witnessing to
Abel. Thus after Trpoo-rjveyKe the Greek originally ran : 01 rjs
€u.apTupr)0r| eu'cu oikcuos, fiapTupourros em tois Scopois auTto tou 0eou.
Then another application of the LXX was added. The phrase in
Gn 4 10 (4><j)vr) at/i,aTos tov a.8eX(pov o~ov (3oa 7rpo? /xe) had already
suggested to Philo that Abel was in a sense still living (quod det.
potiori insid. soleat, 14: 6 "A/3eX, to 7rapaSo£6VaTOi', avrjprfTai re kcu
£77' avrjprjTCU p.ev ck ttjs tov acppovos Siavoias, t,fj 8e t^v iv Oeio £cot)v
ev8a.Lp.ova' p.apTvprjo-ei Se to XPV°~@* V Xoyiov, iv w " cpcovf) " ^pdi/x.€vos
kol " fiowv" (Gen 4 10 ) a TreirovOev vtto KaKov awSerov T7]Xavyw<;
evpLo~K€.TaC 77-ais yap 6 p.7]KeT wv 8iaXeyea0ai SwaTos;). Our author
takes a similar line here : kcu 81* ciuttjs (i.e. men-ecus) airoGaywi' Iti
XaXei. Even after death, Abel's cry is represented as reaching
God, so Philo puts it (ibid. 20), £17 pkv yap, cos kcu irpoTepov e(pyjv, 6
Tcdvavai Sokcov, ci ye kcu ikc't^s cov Oeov kcu cfxavfj xpco/ievos evpio-xeTai.
Only, it is not the fact that the cry was one for retribution (12 24 )
which is stressed here, not the fact that his blood cried to God
after he died ; but, as AaAeiV is never used of speaking to God,
what the writer means to suggest (as in 3 15 ) is that Abel's
faith still speaks to us (AaAei, not the historic present, but = in the
record). Not even in 12 24 does he adopt the idea of a divine
nemesis for the sufferings of the pious in past generations. He
does not represent the blood of martyrs like Abel as crying from
the ground for personal vengeance ; he has nothing of the spirit
which prompted the weird vision of the wronged souls under the
altar crying out for retribution (Rev 6 10 ). "Eti XaXei means, in a
general sense, that he is an eloquent, living witness to all ages
(so recently Seeberg). Primasius (" qui enim alios suo exemplo
admonet ut justi sint, quomodo non loquitur?") and Chry-
SOStom (tovto kcu tov £fjv 0-qp.eiov ecrn, Kal tov 7rapa iravTiov
aSecrOai, Oavad^ecrOai Kai p.aKapi£,eo~Oai' 6 yap 7rapatvcov tois aAAois
SiKatots e'vai AaAei) put this well. The witness is that 7tuttis may
XI. 4, 5.] THE FAITH OF ENOCH 165
have to face the last extreme of death (12 4 ), and that it is not
abandoned by God ; &iro6av<&v is never the last word upon a
SiKcuos. Compare Tertullian's argument from Abel, in De Scor-
ptace, 8 : "a primordio enim justitia vim patitur. Statim ut coli
Deus coepit, invidiam religio sortita est : qui Deo placuerat,
occiditur, et quidem a fratre ; quo proclivius impietas alienum
sanguinem sectaretur, a suo auspicata est. Denique non modo
justorum, verum etiam et prophetarum."
The difficulty of XaXe? led to the tame correction XaXetVcu in D K L d eth,
etc. AaXetYcu as passive ( = \iy€rai) is nearly as impossible as middle ; to say
that Abel, even after death, is still spoken of, is a tepid idea. The writer of
Hebrews meant more than an immortal memory, more even than Epictetus
when he declared that by dying 6Ve (dei Kal ws e8ei one may do even more
good to men than he did in life, like Socrates (iv. 1. 169, /ecu vvv 2w/cpdrous
iirodaudvTOS ovdkv Jjttov t) /ecu irXelov tb<pe\i/j.6s iaTiv avdpwwois r) pv-qixij &v in
£G>v iirpa^ev 7) direv).
The irioTts 'EfoSx (vv. 6 - 6 ) is conveyed in an interpretation
of the LXX of Gn 5 24 /ecu evrjpio-Trjo-ev 'Evw^ tu! Oeoj' /ecu ou^
rjvpLa-KeTo, SioVi /AtTc'^Kev avrov 6 #€os. The writer takes the two
clauses in reverse order. Enoch jieTeTe'0r| tou (with infinitive of
result) firj i8eii> QdvaTov (Lk 2 26 ) Kal ("indeed," introducing the
quotation) ofy rjupio-KeTo (on this Attic augmented form, which
became rare in the koivtq, see Thackeray, 200) Sum p.eTiQr\Kev
cuVrcV 6 Geos, irpo yap (resuming Tricrm /xercTe^T/) ttjs fieTaOeo-ews
u€(iapTupT]Tai (in the scripture record ; hence the perfect, which
here is practically aoristic) cur|peoTr|iceVcH tw Geou (cuapeo-Tetv in its
ordinary Hellenistic sense of a servant giving satisfaction to his
master). For eupuxKco-Gcu = die (be overtaken or surprised by
death), 1 cp. Epict. iii 5. 5 f., ovk oTSas on /cat vdcros Kal Odvaros
KaraXafieiv rjp.a<; oepciAoucrtv Tt ttotc 7rotovvTas ; . . . ep.01 p.iv yap
Kara\r]<p6rjvai yevoiro /atiSevos aAXov iTrip.iXovp.evw i) tijs TTpoaipetreojs
ttjs £p.r}<; . . . Tavra eVir^Seijwv OeXw evpcOrjvai: iv. IO. 12, dya#6s
wv a.7ro9avrj, yevvaiav irpa^iv iTriTcX&v. cVei yap Set 7rdvT(os airodaveiv,
avdyKT] rt 7tot€ TTOLOvvra eipedrjvaL ... Tt ovv #e'Aeis ttolwv €vpe$rjvai
vtto tov Oavdrov ; Here evpeOrjvai (with or Without Tor) 0avaTou)
is a synonym for KaraXrjcpdrjvai or aTroOaveiv, as in Ph 3 9 (evptdw
iv avrw).
Both Clem. Rom. (9 2 ) and Origen, like Tertullian, appear to have read
ovx evpedt) avrov Oavaros in Gn 5 s4 ; and Blass therefore reads here ovx
Tjvpl(TKeT[o) avrov 8a.va.T0s, especially as it suits his scheme of rhythm. This
is linguistically possible, as €vpiiXKtcrdai — ht (cp. Fr. se trouver), e.g. in Lk
17 18 , Ph 2 8 . M€T€0tjk£V was turned into the pluperfect p-ereriO^Kev by N*
D° L 5. 203. 256. 257. 326. 337. 378. 383. 491. 506. 623. 161 1, etc.
Traditions varied upon Enoch (EBi. 1295a), and even Alex-
andrian Judaism did not always canonize him in this way. (a)
1 In Sifre Deut. 304, the angel of death sought Moses, but found him not
(ixyp i6[).
1 66 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 6, 6.
The author of Wis 4 10f -, without mentioning his name, quotes
Gn 5 24 as if it meant that God removed Enoch from life early
(/cat £cov (jL€Ta$v dp.apTu>Xu>v /xeTereOr]) in order to prevent him from
sharing the sin of his age (rjpirdyrj, p.rj /caKta d\\d£r] (rvveaiv avrov,
r) SdAos d7raTrjarj ij/vxr/v avrov) ; he departed young, but his
removal was a boon mercifully granted by God to his youthful
piety. (b) Philo views him in de Abrahamo, 3 (cp. de praem.
3-4), as a type of ^rdvoia. Quoting Gn 5 s4 he points out that
fierdOecns means a change for the better, and that oix rjlpco-KCTo
is therefore appropriate, ti3 tw dp^aiov /cat iTri\.rj7TTov dira\r)\L(pdai
fiiov /cat r)cpavio~6ai. /cat firjKiO' evptcr/c«cr#ai, KaBdivsp €t p.rj8k ttjv
dpxqv eyevero. The Greek version of Sir 44 16 echoes the same
tradition ("Evco^ evrjpecrTrjo-ev Kvpiw Kal p.€T€T€0r], VTroStiypLa
/u.€Tavotas Tats yeveats), viz. that fieTeOr/Kev implies the effacement
of Enoch's blameable past, or at any rate that he was enrolled in
better company. Our author does not share this view. His
general deduction in v. 6 expands the description of moris in v. 1 .
To say that a man has satisfied God is to pronounce the highest
possible eulogy upon him, says Philo x (de Abrahamo, 6, " Tci <9ew
evrjpea-Trjaev' " ov ri yivotr av iv rfj {j/vo~ei Kpelrrov ; Tt's KaA.oKotya#tas
eVapyeo-Tepos eAcyxos;), though he is referring to Noah, not to
Enoch. Our author explains that to satisfy God necessarily
implies iricrris (v. 6 ) in the sense of io 35 . riicrreucrai yap Set Toy
irpocrepxoaekoi' to 0ew (4 16 etc.) oti tariv (so Epict. iii. 26. 15,
otl Kal ecTTi /cat KaAws Sioikci Ta oAa) Kal tois ck£t]touo-ik auToe
fjnaGa-rroSoTTjs (cf. v. 26 io 35 ) yiVeTai. As for the first element of
belief, in the existence of God (oti eone), the early commentators,
from Chrysostom (cm Icmv* ov to tl iariv : cp. Tert. adv. Marc.
i. 17, "primo enim quaeritur an sit, et ita qualis sit") and Jerome
(on Is 6 1 " 7 , in Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3. no : "cumque idem
apostolus Paulus scribit in alio loco, Credere oportet accedentem
ad Deum quia est, non posuit quis et qualis sit debere cognosci,
sed tantum quod sit. Scimus enim esse Deum, scimusque quid
non sit ; quid autem et qualis sit, scire non possumus ") onwards,
emphasize the fact that it is God's existence, not his nature,
which is the primary element of faith. Philo does declare that
the two main problems of enquiry are into God's existence and
into his essence (de Monarch, i. 4-6), but our author takes the
more practical, religious line, and he does not suggest how faith in
1 Philo fancifully allegorizes the phrase in the de mutat. notnin. 4 :
tpdelperai ovv eltcdrus rb yewdes Kal KaraXverai, orav 6'\os 5t' 8\uv 6 vods
tvapeartiv irpoiXrjTai dap' cnrdviov 8k Kal rb yivos Kal /j.6\i$ eupicrKSfievov,
tt\7)i> ovk afivvarov yei>e"adaf S^Xot de rb xPV&Qt 1 ' ^ 7r ' T °v 'Evwx \6yiov r68e'
etirip{(7T7]cre 5e 'Euwx Ttp de<$ Kal ovx evpiUKero' trod yap <av> <jKe\pdixev6s tis
eSpoi Tayadbv tovto ; . . . o(>x evplcTKero 6 evapijaTrjcra srpbiros ry Ocip, u>5
av dr/Trov virapKTbs [i&v uc, diroKpyirrdfievos 8e Kal ttjv els rairrb otivoSov tj/jluh
diro5i8pd<7K(i)i>, iveidrj Kal fteTaTedijvai. Xtytrai.
XI. 6, 7.] FAITH AND GOD 1 67
God's existence is to be won or kept. When objectors asked
him why he believed in the existence of the gods, Marcus
Aurelius used to reply : irpwTOV p.ev Kal oif/€L oparoi euriV liruTa
fjuevToi ov8k ttjv ifrvxyv tt]v ipavTov ewpa/ca *ai o/xws Tipu)" ovtlos ovv
KO.I TOVS 0€OVS, i£ WV T>}? 8wdp€<D9 CLVTWV £«a(7T0T€ 7T€lp(l>paL, €K
rovTmv otl T€ elcrt KaTaXap.fia.vto koli alSovpaL (xii. 28). We have
no such argument against atheism here ; only the reminder that
faith does imply a belief in the existence of God — a reminder
which would appeal specially to those of the readers who had been
born outside Judaism. Belief in the existence of God is for our
author, however, one of the elementary principles of the Chris-
tian religion (6 1 ) ; the stress here falls on the second element,
■ecu . . . fuaGcnroSorrjs y^ £T(U - When the Stoics spoke about
belief in the divine existence, they generally associated it with
belief in providence; both Seneca (Ep. xcv. 50, "primus est
deorum cultus deos credere . . . scire illos esse qui praesident
mundo, quia universa vi sua temperant, qui humani generis
tutelam gerunt interdum curiosi singulorum ") and Epictetus (e.g.
ii. 14. II, Xeyowiv ol (piXoarocpoL otl p.a6elv Set Trpwrov tovto, otl
Ictti deos ical TTpovoel toiv oXlov : Enchir. xxxi. 1, 1-775 irepl tovs 6eoi>s
evcrefiuas tardto otl to KvpiioTaTov e/cetvo Iotlv 6p9a<; V7ro\i]ij/€L<; nepl
aUTWV £X etV < * )S OVTLOV KOLL BlOLKOVVTLOV TO. 6\a KaXuJS KCU OLKLlLlOs) 3.TQ
contemporary witnesses to this connexion of ideas, which, indeed,
is as old as Plato (Leges, 905^, on p.ev yap deoi r curly *ai
avOpuyjriov €7rip.€XouvTai).
Tots cK^-roCo-iy aoTov (for which p 18 P read the simple ^rp-ovaiv)
denotes, not philosophic enquiry, but the practical religious quest,
as in the OT (e.g. Ac 15 17 , Ro 3 11 ). This is not Philo's view,
e.g., in the Leg. Alleg. 3 16 €i S« ^TiTOio-a evprjtreis 0e6v a8r]\ov,
7roXXoTs yap ovk e<paveptoo-ev kavTOV, dXX' aTeXi} ttjv o-7rov&r)v Q-XP L
iravTOS ta-xpV e^apxei //.cVtoi Trpos /nerowiav dya#a>v /cat i/^iXov to
^TiTetv p.6vov, del yap at cttl to. KaXa oppai Kav tov TeXous an^wcri
tov<; xpw/xcVous irpoev<ppaivovcrLv. But our author has a simpler
belief; he is sure that the quest of faith is always successful.
By God's reward he means that the faith of man reaching out to
God is never left to itself, but met by a real satisfaction ; God
proves its rewarder. Such faith is a conviction which illustrates
1 1 1 , for the being of God is an unseen reality and his full reward
is at present to be hoped for.
A still more apt illustration of mores as the eXcyxos TTpdypaTwv
ov fl\eirop.£viov which becomes a motive in human life, now occurs
in (v. 7 ) the faith which Noah showed at the deluge when he
believed, against all appearances to the contrary, that he must
obey God's order and build an ark, although it is true that in
this case the unseen was revealed and realized within the lifetime
of the SiKaios. Like Philo, our author passes from Enoch to
1 68 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 7.
Noah, although for a different reason. Philo ranks Noah as the
lover of God and virtue, next to Enoch the typical penitent (de
Abrah. 3, 5, cikotw? t<3 //.eravcvoT/Kcm to.ttu Kara, to ££r)<; tov dco<f>i\f)
teal <t>i\dpeTov) ; here both are grouped as examples of moris.
Sirach (44 17f# ) also passes at once from Enoch to Noah the 8ik<hos.
7 // was by faith (Trio-ret) that Noah, after being told by God (xpy/Jario-dels,
8 B , sc. irapa. tov deov) of what was still unseen (tGiv /xrjdiTrui fiXeirofiivui', i.e.
the deluge), reverently (ev\a(3r]dels, cp. 5 7 ) constructed (Ka.reaKeva.o-ev, as I P
3 20 ) an ark to save his household ; thus he condemned the world and became
heir of the righteousness that follows faith.
The writer recalls, though he does not quote from, the story
of Gn 6 13f \ nioT€i goes closely with euXd^Geis KdTCo-iceuacrei',
and TT€pl t. fx. p\€Tro|i,eVo)»' goes with xp'HH'aTio'Oeis (as Jos. Ant. iv.
102, 6^p7//xaTi^€TO 7rept wv iBetro), not with ev\a/3r]6ei<;, which is not
a synonym for (poftrjOets — the writer is at pains always to exclude
fear or dread from faith (cp. vv. 23 - 27 ). Els o-conqpiar is to be
taken as = " to save alive " (Ac 27 20 7rSo-a cA/n-ls tov cri6£eo-0ai 17/uas,
27" tovto yap Trpos t>js vfierepas (ramjpias VTrap^ei). Ai tjs {I.e. Dy
the faith he thus exhibited ; as both of the following clauses
depend on this, it cannot refer to the ark, which would suit only
the first) KaTCKpike toc Koo-fj.ot', where KaTexpivev corresponds to
what is probably the meaning of Wis 4 16 KaraKpLvel 8k oYkcuos
Kap.(bv tovs £ujvtcis do-€/3as, though nap.o)V ( = davwv) is not the
point of Hebrews, which regards Noah's action as shaming the
world, throwing its dark scepticism into relief against his own
shining faith in God (Josephus, in Ant. i. 75, puts it less
pointedly : 6 Se #eos rovrov pXv t^s Si/caioowr?? rryarrrjcre, KarcSiKa^e
0" c/cetvous) ; K<5o-p,og here (as in v. 38 ) means sinful humanity,
almost in the sense so common in the Johannine vocabulary,
the Kocr/xos ao-e(3wv of 2 P 2 5 . Philo (de congressu erudit. 17)
notes that Noah was the first man in the OT to be specially
called (Gn 6 9 ) 8ik<uos ; but our author, who has already called
Abel and Noah Stxato?, does not use this fact; he contents
himself with saying that ttjs Kara morii' Siicaioo-urrjs eyeVcTO kXtjpo-
rojios, i.e. he became entitled to, came into possession of, the
SiKaioo-vvrj which is the outcome or property (Kcn-a ktA.., as in
Hellenistic Greek, cp. Eph i 15 , a periphrasis for the possessive
genitive) of such faith as he showed. AiKatoo-vvrj here is the
state of one who is God's Si'kcuos (6 Sikcuos p.ov, io 38 ). A vivid
description of Noah's faith is given in Mark Rutherford's novel,
The Deliverance, pp. 162, 163.
The faith of Abraham, as might be expected, receives more
attention than that of any other (cp. Ac 7 2f -). It is described in
three phases ( 8 - 9 " 10 - 17 - 19 ) ; the faith of his wife Sara is attached to
his ( n ' 12 ), and a general statement about his immediate descend-
XI. 7-9.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 1 69
ants is interpolated ( 13 - 16 ) before the writer passes from the second
to the third phase. As in Sirach and Philo, Abraham follows
Noah. "Ten generations were there from Noah to Abraham,
to show how great was His longsuffering ; for all the generations
were provoking Him, till Abraham our father came and received
the reward of them all " (Pirke Aboth 5 3 ).
8 It was by faith that Abraham obeyed his call to go forth to a place
which he would receive as an inheritance ; he went forth, although he did not
know where he was to go. 9 It was by faith that he " sojourned' 1 '' in the
promised land, as in a foreign country, residing in tents, as did Isaac and
facob, who were co-heirs with him of the same promise ; i0 he was waiting for
the City with its fixed foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
The first phase (v. 8 ) is the call to leave Mesopotamia and
travel West, which is described in Gn i2 l£ . The writer does not
dwell, like Philo (de Abrahamo, 14), on the wrench of tearing
oneself from one's home. But, as Philo says that Abraham
started a//.a t<3 KeXevardrjvaL, our author begins with xaXouficfos.
When the call came, he obeyed it — uinJKouo-ev' c^eXGeti' (epexegetic
infinitive), a reminiscence of Gn 12 14 kou elirev Kvpios t<3
'A/Jpa/i,, "E£eA#€ . . . kcu iiropevOr] 'Afipap. Kadairep iXd\rj(rev avraJ
Kvpios. He went out from Mesopotamia, jjltj eTuordp.ei'os iroC
epxeTai, his faith being tested by this uncertainty. So Philo (de
Migr. Abrah. 9) notes the point of the future 8ei$<n in Gn 12 1 ;
it is cts p.apTvpiav 7rurretos rjv tiriartvcrev rj i(rv\n] Octi.
The insertion of 6 before KaXovfievos (A D 33. 256. 467. 1739. 2127 sah
Loh arm Thdt. ) turns the phrase into an allusion to Abraham's change of
name in Gn 17 5 , which is irrelevant to his earlier call to leave the far East.
The second phase (vv. 9 - 10 ) is the trial of patience. He did
not lose heart or hope, even when he did reach the country
appointed to him, although he had to wander up and down it as
a mere foreigner, els (=&, Mk 13 16 , Ac 8 40 ) . . . dMoTpiae.
He found the land he had been promised still in the hands of
aliens, and yet he lived there, lived as an alien in his own
country ! napwKrjaei' is the opposite of Karwiajcrei' (as in Gn 37 1 ),
and with a fine touch of paradox the writer therefore goes on to
describe Abraham as iv o-KTjrals KaToiKTJCTas, contented patiently
to lead a wandering, unsettled life. Such was all the " residence "
he ever had ! What sustained him was his turns (v. 10 ), his eager
outlook for the City, tj$ rexfiTTjs leal 8t||juoupy6s 6 0eos. Compare
the scholion on Lucian'syiw. Trag. 38 : ov St) 6eov naX Srjp.iovpybv
6 evcre/?^? avevprjKois \oyicrp.6<; Z<popov koX tc^vlttjv tov 7ravros
Trpoevrpe-mo-ev. Tex^'T^s is not a LXX term, and only began to
be used of God in Alexandrian Judaism (e.g. in Wis 13 1 ). This
is the one place in the NT where it is applied to God ; after-
wards (e.g. Did. 12 3 ; Diognetus, 7 2 ) it became more common.
Aruxioupyos is equally unique as a NT term for God, but it occurs
lyo THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 9-12.
in 2 Mac 4 1 , and was used in classical literature frequently for a
subordinate deity (cp. Schermann, Texte u. Untersuchungen,
xxxiv. 26. 23). In Apoc. Esdrae (ed. Tisch. 32) the phrase
occurs, 6 Trdo-qs rrj<; KTtcrecDs Brj/j.tovpyo's. Our author simply writes
Teyvi-nis koI S^fiioupyos as a rhetorical expression for maker or
creator (8 2 ), without differentiating the one term from the other,
as "designer" and "constructor" (cp. Philo, quis rer. div. 27,
6 Tex vtTr / s • • • ^jviKa tov Koa-fxov i$r)fjuovpy€i. : de mut. notn. 4,
Wf]K€ to. iravTa 6 yewrjaas koll Te^vtreucras irar-qp, wcttc to u iyw el/xi
deos cos " lo~ov cctti t<5 " iyw el/xt 71-01777775 kcu 8rjp,i.ovpy6<i ").
In 9b the writer adds a new touch (as if to suggest that
Abraham propagated his 7tio-tis) in p.eT& 'lo-adic iea\ MaiaSp l — who
shared the same outlook — tG>v o-uykX^po^ijiwv (a K01V77, though
not a LXX, term for co-heir) tt]s eirayyeXias ttjs aurfis. Their
individual faith is noted later (vv. 20 - 21 ). In sketching his fine
mystical interpretation of Abraham's hope, the author ignores
the fact that Jacob, according to Gn 33 17 (l-n-olTjo-ev al™ ckci
otKtas), did erect a permanent settlement for himself at Sukkoth.
His immediate interest is not in Isaac and Jacob but in
Abraham, and in the contrast of the tent-life with the stable,
settled existence in a city — the idea which recurs in 12 22 13 14 .
It is a Philonic thought in germ, for Philo (Leg. Alleg. 3 27 )
declares that the land promised by God to Abraham is a it6\ls
aya8r] xal ttoAAt) ko.1 acpoSpa tuSat/Awv, typifying the higher con-
templation of divine truth in which alone the soul is at home, or
that the soul lives for a while in the body as in a foreign land
(de Somniis, i 31 ), till God in pity conducts it safe to fiTiTpoiroXis or
immortality. The historical Abraham never dreamed of a iroXis,
but our author imaginatively allegorizes the promised land once
more (cp. 4 3f ), this time as (12 22 ) a celestial ttoAis or Jerusalem,
like Paul and the apocalyptists. According to later tradition
in Judaism, the celestial Jerusalem was shown in a vision to
Abraham at the scene of Gn 15 9 - 21 (Apoc. Bar. 4 4 ), or to Jacob at
Bethel (Beresh. rabba on Gn 28 17 ). 'EleSe'xeTo yap — and this
showed the steady patience( io 36 ) and inward expectation (n 1 ) of
his faith — tt)i> tous 0ep.eXioos (tow's, because it was such foundations
that the tents lacked) exovcrav tt6\i.v. No doubt there was some-
thing promised by God which Abraham expected and did get, in
this life ; the writer admits that (6 13 ' 15 ). But, in a deeper sense,
Abraham had yearnings for a higher, spiritual bliss, for heaven
as his true home. The fulfilment of the promise about his
family was not everything; indeed, his real faith was in an
unseen future order of being (n 1 ). However, the realization of
the one promise about Isaac (6 13 ' 16 ) suggests a passing word
upon the faith of Sara (vv. 11, 12 ).
1 According to Jubilees ic- 16 '" Abraham lived to see Jacob's manhood.
XI. 11.] THE FAITH OF SARA 171
11 It was by faith that even (icai) Sara got strength to conceive, bearing a
son when she was past the age for it — because she considered she could rely on
Him who gave the promise. la Thus a single man, though (nal ravra) he was
physically impotent, had issue in number ' ' like the stars in heaven, countless
as the sand on the seashore."
This is the first instance of a woman's faith recorded, and she
is a married woman. Paul (Ro 4 19f -) ignores any faith on her
part. Philo again praises Sarah, but not for her faith ; it is her
loyalty and affection for her husband which he singles out for
commendation, particularly her magnanimity in the incident of
Gn 16 2 (de Abrahamo, 42-44). Our author declares that even
in spite of her physical condition (icai au-rf) lappa), she believed
God when he promised her a child. The allusion is to the tale
of Gn i7 16 -2i 7 , which the readers are assumed to know, with its
stress on the renewal of sexual functions in a woman of her age.
This is the point of /cat avrrj, not " mere woman that she was "
(Chrysostom, Oec, Bengel), nor "in spite of her incredulity"
(Bleek), nor "Sara likewise," i.e. as well as Abraham (Delitzsch,
Hofmann, von Soden, Vaughan), owing to her close connexion
with Abraham ( Westcott, Seeberg), though the notion of " like-
wise" is not excluded from the author's meaning, since the
husband also was an old man. A gloss (crreipa, 77 crreipa, 77
o-TCLpa oScra) was soon inserted by D* P, nearly all the versions,
and Origen. This is superfluous, however, and probably arose
from dittography (ZAPPAZTGIPA). The general idea is plain,
though there is a difficulty in Suvajjuf cXapei' (i.e. from God)
els KUTaPoXr)!' airepua-ros = els to kolt a fidWco- 6 ai o-iripp.a, i.e. for
Abraham the male to do the work of generation upon her. This
is how the text was understood in the versions, e.g. the Latin (" in
conceptionem seminis "). Probably it was what the writer meant,
though the expression is rather awkward, for KaTafioXr] <nrepp.aTo<;
means the act of the male ; eh iiro&oxqv o-irepp.aro's would have
been the correct words. This has been overcome (a) by omit-
ting Kol <xutt] lappa as a gloss, or (b) by reading au-rfj lappa.
(a) certainly clears up the verse, leaving Abraham as the subject
of both verses (so Field in Notes on Trans/, of NT, p. 232, and
Windisch) ; (b) is read by Michaelis, Storr, Rendall, Hort, and
Riggenbach, the latter interpreting it not as " dativus commodi,"
but = " along with." If the ordinary text is retained, the idea
suggested in k<u airij Sappa is made explicit in irapa KaipcV
TjXiKi'as. What rendered such faith hard for her was her physical
condition. Philo (de Abrah. 22) applies this to both parents
(77817 yap vTrep-qXiKts yeyoi'OTes 81a. paKpbv yfjpas a-rriyvwaav 7rat86s
o-7ropav), and a woman in the period of life described in Gn I8 11 - 12
is called by Josephus yvvaiov tjjv v)\ikio.v T7877 irpofitfiX-qKOS (Ant.
vii. 8. 4).
172 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 11, 12.
Els rb T€Kvw<rai (D* P 69. 436. 462. 1245. 1288. 2005 syr hld ) after ?Xo|3ev
is a harmless gloss. The addition of ^re/cev (k'KLP lat arm) after r/Xt/ciaj
was made when the force of icai ( =even) before irapa Kaipbv was missed.
riioToc i^Y'no'aTo tok cTra.YY€i\dp,efoi' (io 23 ) is an assertion which
shows that the author ignores her sceptical laughter in Gn 18 12 ;
he does not hesitate (cp. v. 27 ) to deal freely with the ancient
story in order to make his point, and indeed ignores the equally
sceptical attitude of Abraham himself (Gn 17 17 ). To be m<rros
in this connexion is to be true to one's word, as Cicero observes
in the de Officiis (i. 7 : " fundamentum autem justitiae fides, id
est dictorum conventorumque constantia et Veritas "). The
promise was fulfilled in this life, so that Sara's faith resembles
that of Noah (v. 7 ). The fulfilment is described in v. 12 , where,
after 816 icai &<}>' kvo% {i.e. Abraham), 1 iyevvr]Qy}<rav (p 13 KL*
1739, etc.) is read by some authorities for iyevrjOrjo-av (A D K P
etc.), though the latter suits the airo in d<j>' eeos rather better.
In either case something like reKva must be understood. J A4>'
ivos is resumed in icai touto, (a v. I. in 1 Co 6 8 for the less
common koX tovto) yeyeKpoijxeVou (in the sense of Ro 4 19 ).
Gen. r. on Gn 25 1 applies job 14 7 - 9 to Abraham, but the plain
sense is given in Augustine's comment (Civit. Dei, xvi. 28) : " sicut
aiunt, qui scripserunt interpretationes nominum Hebraeorum,
quae his sacris literis continentur, Sara interpretatur princeps mea,
Sarra autem uirtus. Unde scriptum est in epistula ad Hebraeos :
Fide et ipsa Sarra uirtutem accepit ad emissionem seminis.
Ambo enim seniores erant, sicut scriptura testatur; sed ilia
etiam sterilis et cruore menstruo iam destituta, propter quod
iam parere non posset, etiam si sterilis non fuisset. Porro si
femina sit prouectioris aetatis, ut ei solita mulierum adhuc
fiuant, de iuuene parere potest, de seniore non potest ; quamuis
adhuc possit ille senior, sed de adulescentula gignere, sicut
Abraham post mortem Sarrae de Cettura potuit [Gn 25 1 ], quia
uiuidam eius inuenit aetatem. Hoc ergo est, quod mirum
commendat apostolus, et ad hoc dicit Abrahae iam fuisse corpus
emortuum, quoniam non ex omni femina, cui adhuc esset
aliquod pariendi tempus extremum, generare ipse in ilia aetate
adhuc posset." This elucidates He n 1L1Sa . In what follows,
the author is quoting from the divine promise in Gn 22 17 , a
passage much used in later Jewish literature, 2 though this is the
only full allusion to it in the NT (cf. Ro 9 s7 ).
Before passing to the third phase of Abraham's faith, the
writer adds (vv. 18 " 16 ) a general reflection on the faith of the
patriarchs, an application of vv. 9 - 10 . There were promises which
1 Is 5 1 2 iiJ.p\t\j/are eh 'A(3paa/x rbv iraripa v/AUUt . . . on ets 9jv.
2 The comparison of a vast number to stars and sands is common in Greek
and Latin literature ; cp. e.g. Pindar's Olymp. 2 98 , and Catullus, 6i 202 '\
XI. 13.] THE FAITH OF THE PATRIARCHS 1 73
could not be fulfilled in the present life, and this aspect of faith
is now presented.
13 ( These all died in faith without obtaining the promises ; they only
saw them far away and hailed them, owning they were "strangers and
exiles" upon earth. 14 Now people who speak in this way plainly show they
are in search of a fatherland. 15 Jf they thought of the land they have left
behind, they would have time to go back, 16 but they really aspire to the better
land in heaven. That is why God is not ashamed to be called their God ; he
has prepared a City for them.)
Outoi Traces (those first mentioned in ^ 12 , particularly the
three patriarchs) died as well as lived koto irurrir, which is
substituted here for ■nicmi either as a literary variety of ex-
pression, or in order to suggest ttio-tis as the sphere and standard
of their characters. The writer argues that the patriarchs
already possessed a 7ricrrts in eternal life beyond the grave ;
their very language proves that. Mr) KOfiurducfoi explains the
7rtoTis in which they died ; this is the force of p.rj. All they had
was a far-off vision of what had been promised them, but a
vision which produced in them a glad belief — i&drres ita! dcnrao-d-
fiekoi, the latter ptc. meaning that they hailed the prospect with
delight, sure that it was no mirage. The verb here is less meta-
phorical than, e.g., in Musonius (ed. Hense), vi. : -rqv Se ^wr]v <Ls
twv ayaBiov jxiyicrrov acnratp/xiOa, or Philo (ay airrjcrov ovv dp€Tas koX
ao-n-acrai tyvxjj rfj aeavrov, quis rer. div. /teres, 8). Two interesting
classical parallels may be cited, from Euripides (Ion, 585-587 :
oi Tavrbv eTSos cpacverai rwv Trpayp.a.T(i>v
Trpocrwdev ovtwv eyyvOev 6' op cop. eVuiv.
iyw 8« ttjv ucv <rvp.<popa.v do-7rd£op,ai)
and Vergil (Aen. 3 s24 " Italiam laeto socii clamore salutant ").
Chrysostom prettily but needlessly urges that the whole metaphor
is nautical (twv irXtovTinv kou iroppayOev opwvruyv Tas 7roXets Tas
Tro8ovp.eva<;, as irplv r} cureAfoiv eis auras ry irpoa-p^creL XafiovTe?
auras oiK€iovvTai).
KofjLio-d/j.ei'oi (p 13 n* P W 33, etc.) is more likely to be original than a con-
formation to io 36 11 39 ; the sense is unaffected if we read the more common
Xafidvres (K c DKLt6. 104. 1739, Orig.). The reading of A arm (irpocrde£d-
fievoi) makes no sense.
Kai ofioXoyrjorarres, for to reside abroad carried with it a
certain stigma, according to ancient opinion (cp. e.g. Ep.
Aristeae, 249, koXov iv I8ta kclI t,fjv Kai reXevrav. rj Se £evi'a -rots
p.€V TrevrjCTL Kara(pp6vr)(TLV epyd£erai, tois Se 7rA.ovcriois dveiSos, lis
Sid nanLav iKTren-TWKocTiv : Sir 2c) 22 " 28 etc.). The admission, on
|eVoi Kai irapeTriSrjfioi eiaiv eirl y'HS, is a generalization from the
Oriental deprecation of Jacob in Gn 47 s («i7T€v 'IaKw/3 ™ <£apaw,
ai ^pepai Twv Itiuv ttJs £idt}s p.ov as TrapoiKw kt\.), and the similar
confession of Abraham in Gn 23* to the sons of Heth, 7rdpoi*cos
174 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 13.
/cat Trapeiri8r]fxo<; iyw elp.i p.ed* v/xStv. The cVt yrjs is a homiletic
touch, as in Ps 119 19 (7rd/jot/cos etat ev rfj yrj). In both cases this
6/j.oXoyia TTJs iXm8o<; (io 23 ) is made before outsiders, and the
words €7rt t^s y^s start the inference (vv. 14 " 16a ) that the true home
of these confessors was in heaven. Such a mystical significance
of £eVot ica! irapeirt8T](ioi, which had already been voiced in the
psalter, is richly and romantically developed by Philo, but it never
became prominent in primitive Christianity. Paul's nearest
approach to it is worded differently (Phil 3 20 , where to iroXiTevfxa
corresponds to -n-arpk here). In Eph 2 12-19 , indeed, Christians are
no longer £e'voi /cat irapoiKoi, for these terms are applied literally
to pagans out of connexion with the chosen People of God. The
only parallel to the thought of Hebrews is in 1 P, where Christians
are Trapeiri8rjp.oi (i 1 ) and irapoiKoi /cat Trapeir&rffAOi (2 11 ). The term
£eVot is used here as a synonym for -n-dpoiKoi, which (cp. Eph 2 12 - 19 )
would be specially intelligible to Gentile Christians. Hapeiti-
8r/p.o<; only occurs in the LXX in Gn 23*, Ps 39 13 ; in the
Egyptian papyri irapem&Tjp.ovvTe'i (consistentes) denotes foreigners
who settled and acquired a domicile in townships or cities like
Alexandria (GCP. i. 40, 55 ; cp. A. Peyron's Papyri graeci R.
Taur. Musei Aegyptii, 8 13 twv Trapeir i8rffxovvTutv /cat [/ca]roi/coiWwj/
e[v] [T]airrai[9] £cVa>v), and for ievoi = peregrini, Ep. Art's t. 109 f.
The use of such metaphorical terms became fairly common in
the moral vocabulary of the age, quite apart from the OT, e.g.
Marcus Aurelius, ii. 17 (6 8e /3tos ir6Xefjio<; /cat £evov eVtS^pta). A
similar symbolism recurs in the argument of Epictetus (ii. 23, 36 f.)
against the prevalent idea that logic, style, and eloquence are the
end of philosophy : olov el tis dirioiv cts tt)v TrarpiSa ttjv eavTov
/cat 8io8ev(av Trav8oKeiov /caXov dpecravTos avTco tov TravSo/cetov kclto.-
fievoi ev tw 7ravSo/ceta>. avOponre, eneXadov <rov T17S TrpoOecrtws' ov/c €ts
tovto cSScves, dXXd Sta tovtov . . . to 8e irpoKeifxevov e/cctvo' cts ttjv
7raTpt'Sa e-n-aveXOelv. In a more specifically religious sense, it is
expressed in the saying of Anaxagoras quoted by Diogenes
Laertius (ii. 3. 7, 7rpos tov et7rovTa, " ovSeV crot fx.eX.ei. T17S iraTpi8o<;,"
" ev<prfp.ei" ecprj, " e/xot yap /cat cr<p68pa yu.cA.ct t*}? 7raTptSos," 8ei£a<i
tov ovpavov). According to Philo, the confession that they were
strangers and pilgrims meant that the soul in this world longed
to return to its pre-existent state in the eternal order, and could
never feel at home among things material. So, e.g., de con/us.
ling. 17, 8td tovto ot /caTct Mojvcnjv <ro<poi 7rdvres ctcrdyovrat " irapoi-
KOVVT6S-" at yap tovtcdv if/v^al aTeXXovTai fxev diroixiav ov8eTrore ttjv
i£ ovpavov, ei<j}9ao~L 8e tve/ca tov <piXo6ea.fj.ovos /cat <piXo/xa8ov<;
eh ttjv irepiyeiov cpvaiv airo8rfp.etv . . . eiravep^ovrai e/cctcre TrdXiv,
oOev wpp.rjdrjo'av to -rrpwrov, iraTpi8a /xev tov ovpdviov )(£)pov ev to
7roXtTevoi'Tat, £evrjv 8e tov irepiyeiov ev a> TrapwKrjaav vofxi^ovaai ktX.
In Cherub. 33, 34, commenting on irapoiKoi in Lv 25 23 , he argues
XI. 13-15.] THE FAITH OF THE PATRIARCHS 175
that this is the real position of all wise souls towards God, since
each of us is a stranger and sojourner in the foreign city of the
world where God has for a time placed us till we return to Him.
The metaphor had been applied, in a derogatory sense, by Sallust to the
lazy and sensual men who never know what real life means, but who pass
through it heedlessly: "many human beings, given over to sensuality and
sloth ('ventri atque sorano '), uneducated, and uncultured, have gone through
life like travellers" ("vitam sicuti peregrinantes transiere," Catil. 2).
Such a confession proves (v. 14 ) that the men in question are
not satisfied with the present outward order of things ; ep^o^i-
£ouctii' (Esth 2 22 kol avrr] ivtcpdvio-ev t<3 /3ao-iAa ra r>}s eTnf3ov\f}<; :
Ac 23 15 , OGIS. (iii A.D.) 42 9 , Syll. 226 85 rqv tc Trapovo-iav e'^avi-
aavroiv tov /SacrtAeajs), they thus avow or affirm, oti -rraTpi'Sa
£m£r|Tou<m' (Valckenaer's conjecture, hi proven, is ingenious but
needless, cp. 13 14 ). For irdVpis in a mystical sense, compare Philo,
de Agric. 14, commenting on Gn 47*) : t<3 yap ovti 71-ao-a if/vxri
ao(f>ov TrarpiSa p,ev ovpavov, £ivqv Be yrjv «Aa^€, koL vofxi^i tov
fxev o-o<pias oikov iSiov, tov 8k o-wp.aTos oOvzlov, <S kcu Trap€iri$i)fi€Lv
oteTat. Here it is "heaven, the heart's true home." The
creditable feature in this kind of life was that these men had
deliberately chosen it. 1 Had they liked, they might have taken
another and a less exacting line (v. 15 ). El piv (as in 8 4 ) ep^r]-
\ioveuov (referring to the continuous past) kta. The /j.vr)fjLovevovo-iv
of N* D* was due to the influence of the preceding presents,
just as i/jLvrjfjLovtvo-av (33. 104. 2 16 Cosm.) to the influence of
l£ifi-qo-av, which in turn was smoothed out into the usual NT
term i£rj\6oi> (K C DKL* 436. 919. 1288. 1739). Mvt?/xoVcu€iv
here has the sense of "giving a thought to," as in Jos. Ant. vi.
37, ovre Tpo<pf)s i/j.vyp.ovevcrev ov6' virvov, and below in v. 22 . Time
(as Ac 24 25 ), as elsewhere in Hebrews, rather than opportunity
(i Mac 1 5 s4 ^//.eis Se xaipov £X ol/T€S avTc^o'/Ae^a ttj<; K\r)povop.ia<;
rj/j.H)V kol rwv TraTepwv rjfJLwv), is the idea of e.'i)(OV &v Kcupov, Kcup6s
taking an infinitive deaKripiJ/cu (so Codex A in Jg 1 1 39 kcu uveKa-
p.\\i(v 7rpos tov irarkpa. avrrjs, for the aTreo-Tpexf/ev of B), as in Eurip.
Rhesus, IO (xaipos yap aKovo-ai).
Philo remarks of Abraham : rls 8' ovk &v pLerarpaird/jLevos ira\iv8p6fn)<T€v
oticade, fipax^cL fJ-tv (ppovriaas twv /xeWovauv iXiriduv, tt\v dt irapodcav airoplav
o-irev5wt> iicQvyeiv {de Abrakamo, 18).
"Sometimes he wished his aims had been
To gather gain like other men ;
Then thanked his God he'd traced his track
Too far for wish to drag him back."
(Thomas Hardy, The Two Men.)
On the contrary (v. 16 ), so far from that, they held on, the writer
1 Cp. Test. Job xxxiii. (o&rw Kayw ^7 y\a d ivr\v to. i/m, dvr oiiStvos irpbs
iKelvyv tt)v irb\u> irepl ^s \e\d\t]Kiv poi 6 &yye\os).
176 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 16, 17.
adds ; vuv 8e (logical, as in 8 6 , not temporal) Kpci'-nwos ope'yoi'Tai,
tout e<niv cTToupafiou (so God is described in 2 Mac 3 s9 as 6 rrjv
KaroiKiav Itrovpdviov «x wv )' ^ l ° °" K ciraiaxufeTcu (compare 2 11 )
auTous 6 0eos " Oeos " eiritcaXeiorOat (epexegetic infinitive) " auTwi',"
referring to Ex 3 6 , 'Eyw ci/ai . . . 0eos 'Afipaap. kcu 0e6s 'Io-aax kol
deos 'Ia.KU)f3, which the writer 1 interprets (cp. Mk i2 26,27 ) as an
assurance of immortality. Their hope of a irarpk or heavenly
home was no illusion ; it was because God had such a 7roAis
(v. 10 ) all ready for them that he could call himself their God.
He might have been ashamed to call himself such, had he not
made this provision for their needs and prepared this reward for
their faith (rjToi/xao-tv, cp. Mt 23 s4 ).
The third phase of the faith of Abraham (vv. 17 " 19 ) is now
chronicled, followed by three instances of faith at the end of
life, in Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (vv. 20-22 ).
17 It was by faith {irlarei), "when Abraham was put to the test, that he
sacrificed Isaac" ; he was ready to sacrifice " his only son," although he had
received the promises, 18 and had been told (wpbs 8v, as 5 B ) that (Srt recitative)
" it is through Isaac (not Ishmael) that your offspring shall be reckoned" —
19 for he considered God was able even to raise men from the dead. Hence
(6dev, causal) he did get him back, by what was a parable of the resurrection.
20 // was by faith that Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in connection with the
future. 21 It was by faith that, when Jacob was dying (dvodvr]<rKuv), he
blessed each of the sons of Joseph, " bending in prayer over the head of his
staff." 22 It was by faith that Joseph at his end {re\evrwt> only here) thought
about the exodus of the sons of Israel, and gave orders about his own bones.
The supreme test of Abraham's ttio-tis is found in the story
of Gn 22 1 " 18 , which Jewish tradition always reckoned as the last
and sorest of his ten trials {Pirke Aboth 5 4 ). It is cited in
4 Mac 16 18 " 20 as a classical example of virop.ovrj (6<£eiA.eT€ Trdvra
ttovov inrofieveiv Sia tov 6eov, St' ov kol o Tvarrjp rjfj.(i)v 'A^paa/x
€0-7rcu8ev tov eOvoiroLTOpa vlov (repay tacrat 'Io-aax ktA..). In V. 17 the
perfect tense irpo(T€vr\vox^y may mean "the ideally accomplished
sacrifice, as permanently recorded in scripture" (Moulton, so
Dial. 2751); but it is more likely to be aoristic (cp. Simcox,
Lang, of NT., pp. 104, 126). ncipa^opeyos echoes Gn 22 1 (6
deos C7mpa£ev tov 'Afipadp.). Kal (epexegetic) toc (xokoyekTJ (a
Lucan use of the term in the NT) 2 Trpoo-e'^epei/ (conative imper-
fect of interrupted action, like ixaXow in Lk i 69 ) 6 tcis eTrayye-
Xias dvaoe£dp.evos, i.e. the promises of a son, of a numerous line
of descendants (v. 12 ), and of a blessing thus coming to all nations.
1 Origen (Joh. ii. 17) : p.eyd\rj yap dwpea. rotj iraTpi&pxcus rb rbv Oebv dvrl
6v6p.aros irpoad\pai tt)v iKelvwv dvonaalav rfj >0eds< I5la avrov irpocrrjyopia.
2 The LXX of Gn 22 2 reads rbv dyairrirbv, but perhaps the writer of tlpbs
'Eppalovs read a text like that underlying Aquila (rbv p-ovoyevij), Josephus
(rbv p-ovoyevij, Ant. i. 3. 1), and Symmachus (rbv p.6vov). Movoyevris and
dyairyrbs, as applied to a son, tended to shade into one another. Philo reads
dyairijTbs Kal p.6vos (quod deus immut. 4, etc.).
XI. 18, 19.] ABRAHAM AND ISAAC 177
This is made explicit in v. 18 , with its quotation from Gn 21 12 .
For dvaSc'xo/ACH in the sense of " secure," see the line from
Sophocles' " Ichneutae," in Oxyrh. Papyri, vii. 25 (ov <J>cu/3os v/juv
e?7re /^ajveSe'^aTo).
In v. 19 Xoyio-dfici'os (as Ro 8 18 etc.) explains why he had the
courage to sacrifice Isaac, although the action seemed certain to
wreck the fulfilment of what God had promised him. He held
on ica! ex eeicpdW eyeipeie (weakened into eyeipai by A P, etc.)
Suvotos (Dan 3 17 os ecrri SuvaTos i$e\eo-6ai rjpd<; ktA., and Ro 4 21 )
sc. iuriv 6 6e6s. Abraham, says Philo (de Abrahamo, 22), iravTa
$8ei 6i.<2 Sward cr^eSov e£ eri (nrapyavuv tovtl to Sdy/xa irpopaOovaa.
Later (32) he speaks of this sacrifice as the most outstanding
action in Abraham's life — dAi'yov yap Sew </>dvai 7rdcras do-ai
#£0<£iAets v-n-epftdWei. It was " a complicated and brilliant act of
faith " (A. B. Davidson), for God seemed to contradict God,
and the command ran counter to the highest human affection
(Wis IO 6 crocfiia. . . . eVi Tewov (nr\dy^yoi<; icrx^pov icpv\a£ev). As
Chrysostom put it, this was the special trial, to. yap tov deov
eSoxei Tots tov 6eov p.d^ea6a.L, /cat 7rtcn-is e/xd^€TO 7rtcrT€i, /cat 7rpoa-
rayp.a eVayyeAi'a. Hence (oQev, in return for this superb faith)
eKop-unrro, he did recover him (Ko/u£eo-0ai, as in Gn 38 20 etc., of
getting back what belongs to you), 1 in a way that prefigured the
resurrection (Kpeirrovos dVaordo-ews, v. 35 ). Such is the meaning
of eV irapaj3o\fj (cp. 9 9 ). Isaac's restoration was to Abraham a
sort 2 of resurrection (v. 35a " quaedam resurrectionis fuit species,
quod subito liberatus fuit ex media morte," Calvin). 'Ev irapa-
$o\fj has been taken sometimes in two other ways. (a) = 7rapa-
ySoAcos, i.e. beyond all expectation, almost 7rapaSdfw?, 7rap'
eA7rt6a(s), or in a desperate peril, as Polybius says of Hannibal
(i. 23. 7) dv€A7rioT(os koX irapa/36\<DS aurds ev ttJ o-Ka<f)r] Sie'c/>uye).
This is at any rate less far-fetched than — (b) "whence he had
originally got him, figuratively-speaking," as if the allusion was
to v€V€Kpu)p.€vov (in v. 12 ) ! Against (a) is the fact that TrapaftoXrj
never occurs in this sense.
Augustine's comment is {Civit. Dei, xvi. 32) : "non haesitauit, quod sibi
reddi poterat immolatus, qui dari potuit non speratus. Sic intellectum est
et in epistula ad Hebraeos, et sic expositum [He n 17-19 ] . . . cuius simili-
tudinem, nisi illius unde dicit apostolus : Qui proprio filio non pepercit, sed
pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum ?" He makes Isaac carrying the wood a type
of Christ carrying his cross, and the ram caught in the thicket typical of
Christ crowned with thorns. According to the later Jewish tradition {Pirqe
R. Eliezer, 31), Isaac's soul, which had left his body as his father's sword
1 Josephus {Ant. i. 13. 4) describes the father and son as nap i\Tri5as
eavTovs KeKOfMia/xeuoi. Philo {de Josepho, 35, rb KO/MicracrQai tov &5e\<p6v) has
the same usage.
2 Aelian *( Far. Hist. iii. 33) speaks of Satyrus the flautist, rpowov nva
ttiv t£x v7 ) v iK<f>a.v\i$uv wapafiok-Q ry wpbs <pCkoco<plav.
12
178 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 19-22.
was falling, returned at the words, "Lay not thy hand on the lad"; thus
Abraham and Isaac " learned that God would raise the dead."
The next three instances are of ttiotis as viroa-Tacris i\Tri(op.£vwv,
the hope being one to be realized in the destiny of the race
(vv. 20 - 22 ).
The solitary instance of tuotis in Isaac (v. 20 ) is that men-
tioned in Gn 27 28 - 29 - 39, 40 , a faith which (n 1 ) anticipated a future
for his two sons. Eu\oyr|o-€i/, of one man blessing another, as in
7 lf - In tea! irepl fieXXorrwe (sc. Trpay/xaTOiv), where fieWciv refers
to a future in this world, the rat simply 1 emphasizes nepl /xe\-
Xovrwv eu\6yr)(Tiiv, and the whole phrase goes with evXoyqaev,
not with ttLo-tu. The very fact that he blessed his two sons
proved that he believed the divine promises to them would be
realized in the future. The next two instances of faith are taken
from death-beds ; it is faith, not in personal immortality, but in
the continuance of the chosen race. In v. 21 the writer quotes
from Gn 47 31 kgu irpo(T€Kvvr)o-ev 'IcrparjX €7rl to aKpov rrj<; pdfSSov
airov, where the LXX by mistake has read ntSftn (staff) instead
of nts^n (bed), and the incident is loosely transferred to the later
situation (^Gn 48 9f -), when Jacob blessed the two sons of Joseph.
Supporting himself on 2 his staff, he bowed reverently before
God, as he blessed the lads. (In the Ep. Barnabas 13 4 " 6 , the
writer interprets Jacob's preference for the younger son as a
proof that Christians, not Jews, were the real heirs of God's
blessing !) In v. 22 the argument draws upon Gn 5o 24 - 26 (Ex
i 3 19 j J os 2 4 32 )> where Joseph makes the Israelites swear to
remove his remains from Egypt to the promised land, so con-
fident was he that God's promise to the people would one day
be fulfilled. TeXeuiw (Gn 50 26 Kal ireXevTrjcrev 'Iwo-rjcp) Trepl ttjs
e|ooou (only here in this sense in NT) rQ>v ulwc 'laparjX ep.nf]p.oVeuo-e
(called to mind, as v. 15 ) Kal Trepl rfif ooreW (uncontracted form
as in LXX and Mt 23 27 , Lk 24 s9 ; cp. Cronert, Mem. Graeca
Hercul. 166 4 ) au-rou eVcTeiXa-ro. Joseph's faith also was shown in
his conviction of the future promised by God to Israel, but it
found a practical expression in the instructions about conveying
his mummy out of Egypt (Sir 49 18 Kal to. oo-ra avrov iireo-Keirrjo-av).
The ninth example of mons is Moses, of whom almost as
much is made as of Abraham. Five instances of faith are
mentioned in connexion with his career (vv. 23 " 29 ).
28 It was by faith that Aloses was li hidden for three months" (rplix-qvov,
sc. xpf> vov ) after birth by his parents, because "they saw" the child was
1 To suggest that it means " even " is flat for a blessing, ex hypoihesi,
referred to the future. Its omission (by kKLP, the eastern versions, etc.)
is more easily explained than its insertion.
2 I K I 47 TrpocreKvvqtrev 6 j8acri\ei)s 4iri tt]v Koirrjv, iirl has the same local
sense.
XI. 23, 24.] THE FAITH OF MOSES 179
"beautiful" (Ac 7 20 ), and had no fear of the royal decree. M // was by faith
that Moses refused, "when he had grown up," to be called the son of Pharaoh's
daughter ; w ill-treatment with God's people he preferred to the passing
pleasures of sin, 2S considering obloquy with the Messiah to be richer wealth
than all Egypt's treasures— for he had an eye to the Reward. 27 It was by
faith that he left Egypt, not from any fear of the king's wrath ; like one
xvho saw the King Invisible, he never flinched. M // was by faith that he
celebrated " the passover" and performed the sprinkling by blood, so that "the
destroying angel" (cf. I Co lo lu ) might not touch Israel' s firstborn. w It was
by faith that they crossed the Red Sea (Ac 7 36 ) like dry land — and when the
Egyptians attempted it, they were drowned.
Moses (v. 23 ) owed the preservation of his life as an infant to
the courageous mcrus of his parents (TrctTepwy = yoi/eis, parentes,
like patres in Ovid's Metam. 4 61 , and Plato's Leges, vi. 772 E,
ayaOwv irarlpoiv <f)vvri). The writer quotes from Ex 2 2 - 3 , adding
that, as the result of their faith, they had no fear of the royal
edict (8ia.Tay/xa. as in Jos. Ant. xvi. 16. 5 ; Wis 11 7 etc.). This is
the main point of their 7tio-tis. On acntiov see Philo's vit. Mos.
i. 3 : ■y€vv^6 , €ts ovv 6 7rats tvOvs oif/iv ive^atvev doreiOTe'/Dav t] kolt
ISlwttjv, ws kou tojv tov Tvpdvvov K7]pvyp.a.T(nv, i(p ocrov 010V t« r\v,
tous yovets dAoy^crat). The Hebrew text makes the mother act
alone, but the LXX gives the credit to both parents ; and this
tradition is followed by Philo and Josephus {Ant. ii. 9. 4), as by
our author.
The parents of Moses are the first anonymous people in the roll-call of
faith's representatives. Calvin rather severely ranks their faith on a lower
level, because the parents of Moses were moved by the external appearance
of their child, and because they ought to have brought him up themselves
("notandum est fidem quae hie laudatur ualde fuisse imbecillam. Nam
quum posthabito mortis suae metu Mosen deberent educare, eum exponunt.
Patet igitur illorum fidem breui non tantum uacillasse sed fuisse collapsam").
Still, he reflects that this is after all an encouragement, since it proves that
even weak faith is not despised by God. Chrysostom's comment is kinder ;
the writer, he thinks, means to afford additional encouragement to his
readers by adducing not only heroes, but commonplace people as examples
of faith (ao-r][j.wv, avcovtifiuv).
Another (7 2 ) gloss has been inserted here, after v. 23 , by D* 1827 and
nearly all the MSS of the Latin versions, viz. Trlarei /xiyas yei>6p.ei>os Mwvcrrjs
aveTKev rbv AlyinrTiov KaravoQv rr\v raireivwcnv tCiv aoe\<pwv avrov, a homi-
letical application of Ex 2 U - 12 (used in Ac 7 23f -)-
The second item of faith (v. 24 ) is the first individual proof by
Moses himself. Josephus (Ant. ii. 9. 7) makes Moses refuse the
Pharaoh's crown when a baby. The Pharaoh's daughter placed
the child in her father's arms ; he took it, pressed it to his
bosom, and to please his daughter graciously put the crown upon
its head. But the child threw it to the ground and stamped on
it. Which seemed ominous to the king ! The writer of Hebrews
avoids such fancies, and simply summarizes Ex 2 11£ , where
Moses /xeyas yekojie^os (from Ex 2 11 ; i.e., as Calvin points out,
when his refusal could not be set down to childish ignorance
l8o THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 24-26.
of the world, nor to youthful impetuousness) Tjpvrj'craTo (with
infinitive as in Wis I2 27 16 16 17 10 ) Xeyeo-Ocu ulds 0uya.Tp6s 4>apau.
His religious motive in declining the title and position of son to
an Egyptian princess (Jub 47 s ) is now given (v. 25 ) ; u.aXXoe
eXojxei/os (for the construction and idea, cp. OGIS. 669 15 p.d\Xov
ttjv tS)v Trporipwv iirdp^v ah'uvtov crvvrjOeiav <pv\d(T(rwv t/<i> rrjv
7r/30crKatpov Ttvos dSiKiav p.eip.7](rdp.evo<;) (TuyicaKOuxeicrGcH (a new
compound, unknown to the LXX) tw Xaw tou 0eou r\ Trpoo-Kcupoi' (a
non-LXX term 1 which first occurs in 4 Mac i5 2 - 8 - 23 , and passed
into the early Christian vocabulary as an antithesis to aicivtos)
c^eiy d(j.apTtas diroXauaiv. The ap.apTia is the sin which he
would have committed in proving disloyal to the People of God ;
that might have been pleasant for the time being, but moris
looks to higher and lasting issues (io 34 n 1 ). It would have
been "sin" for him to choose a high political career at court,
the " sin " of apostasy ; he did what others in their own way had
done afterwards (io 35 , cp. 13 3 ).
For air<5\auo-is see Antipater of Tarsus (Stob. Florileg. lxvii. 25) : rbv 5'
ijffeov <.fHov>, i^ovo~lav btbbvra irpbs &Ko\a(rlav Kal ttoikIXcov rjbovQv aTrbXavcriv
ayevvQv Kal puKpoxapwv , Icrbdeov vofxl£ov<n, and 4 Mac 5 8 > where the tyrant
taunts the conscientious Jews, Kal yap avb-qrov rovro rb ixt) airoXaveiv rwv x w P^
dveldovs rjbiwv. Philo [vit. A/os. i. 6 : yevbfievbs re Siacfrepbvriiis a<rK7]rr]s
bXiyobeelas Kal rbv afipodLairov filov ws ovdels Zrepos x^ el "^ ' as — ^ V XV "Y^P
iirbdei fjibv-r} tfv, ov aJ^fiari) praises the asceticism of Moses in the palace
of the Pharaoh, but gives an interpretation of his reward which is lower
than that of our author ; he declares (i. 27) that as Moses renounced the
high position of authority which he might have enjoyed in Egypt (e7ra5r? yap
ttjv AlyvvTov KariXnrev yyefiovlav, Ovyarpt-Sovs rod t6t€ ftaaiXevovros wv),
because he disapproved of the local injustice, God rewarded him with
authority over a greater nation.
In v. 26 the reason for this renunciation of the world is
explained. M€i£oKa TfXouToy TjyTjo-du.ei'os (cp. V. 11 and Aoyio-d/ACvos
in V. 19 ) Tail' AlyuTTTOu drjo-aupuie rbv 6vei%icrp,bv tou Xpiorou (as
involved in o-vyKaKovx^o-dat tw Aa<3 tov deov). This is one of
the writer's dinting phrases. There is a special obloquy in being
connected with Christ. It is one of the things which Christians
have to face to-day (13 13 ), and, the writer argues, it has always
been so ; Moses himself, the leader of God's people at the first,
showed his 7tio-tis by deliberately meeting it. The obloquy was
part of the human experience of Jesus himself (12 2 13 12 ), but the
point here in rbv 6vei8i.o-u.6i> tou Xpiorou is that, by identifying
himself with God's people in Egypt, Moses encountered the
same oVeiSioyAos as their very messiah afterwards was to endure.
He thus faced what the writer, from his own standpoint, does
not hesitate to call tov oi/ct8to-/x,ov tou Xpurrov. Whether he had
in mind anything further, e.g. the idea that 6 Xpio-ros here
1 It recurs in an edict of Caracalla (215 A.D.), quoted by Mitteis-Wilcken,
i. 2. 39.
XI. 26, 27.] THE FAITH OF MOSES i8l
means the pre-incarnate Logos, as though a mystical sense
like that of i Co io 4 underlay the words, is uncertain and
rather unlikely, though the idea that Christ was suffering in the
person of the Israelites, or that they represented him, might be
regarded as justified by the language, e.g., of Ps 89 51 (tov dvei-
8t.crp.ov tuv SovAojv crov . . . ov biveibicrav to dvTaXXayp.a tov Xpicrrov
crov). The experiences of ingratitude and insulting treatment
which Moses suffered at the hands of Israel illustrate Chry-
sostom's definition of t6v 6vei8tcrp.bv tov X.ptcrTov : to p.exP l TeXovs
kcu eo"^aT7js dvairvorjs irdcr^iLV xaKus . . . tovto co-tiv 6vei8tcrp.bs
tov Xpto-Tov, oVav Tts -rrap' wv evepyerel oveiSt^Tcu (citing Mt 27 40 ).
The basis of this estimate of life is now given : airi^Xetrev yap eis
ttji' pior0airo8oo-iai', as the writer desired his readers to do (io 35
n 6 ). 'ATTofiXeireiv els is a common phrase for keeping one's eye
upon, having regard to, e.g. Theophrastus, ii. 10, ko.1 els exeZvov
dirofSXeircDv : Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 15. I, 6 pkv . . . els p.6vov to
XvctitcXcs to eK Tuiv dp7rayu>v aTrofiXeTrtov, irap-qKOVcrev. Mr. Starkie,
in his note on Arist. Acharn. 32, suggests that dirofSXeTreiv, which
is common in the comic poets and is also a philosophical term
(e.g. Plato's Phaedo, 115 C; Phaedrus, 234 D), "was used like
• to prescind ' in English," i.e. to fix one's gaze on a single
object by withdrawing it from everything else.
The third act of faith in his life (v. 27 ) is his withdrawal from
Egypt to Midian (Ex 2 14f - = Ac 7 29 ). In pr\ <f>o{3T]8els Tor Qupbv
tou pao-iXecos the author ignores the statement of the OT that
Moses did fly from Egypt, in terror of being punished by the
king for having murdered the Egyptian (bpyrjv dp.eiXiKTov fiacnXecos
dTroSiSpdo-KGJv, Philo, de vit. Mos. i. 9). Josephus in his own
way also (Ant. ii. 10. 1) eliminates the motive of fear. Our
author declares that if Moses did retreat from Egypt, it was
from no fear of Pharaoh, but in the faith that God had a future
and a mission for him still ; he had as little fear of Pharaoh as
his parents had had, tov ydp dopo/roy (sc. fiacriXea) cos bp£>v eicapW-
pi)<rer (cp. Sir 2 2 evOvvov rrjv napSiav crov kclI KapTeprjcrov). " The
courage to abandon work on which one's heart is set, and accept
inaction cheerfully as the will of God, is of the rarest and highest
kind, and can be created and sustained only by the clearest
spiritual vision " (Peake). The language and thought are illus-
trated by Epict. ii. 16. 45-46 : €K ti?s 8iavoias eKJ3aXe . . . Xvtttjv,
cpofiov, etri.6vp.Lav, cpOovov, eiri-^aipeKaKLav, cpiAapyvpiav, p.a.\a.Kiav,
d^pacriav. TavTa 8' ovk ecrTiv dXXws eK^aXeZv, el p.r] irpos p.ovov tov
6ebv airofiXeirovTa., eneLvta p.6vw TrpoanreirovOoTa, tois iiceivov irpoo~T-
dyp.acri Ka6o)o-Ltop.evov. The phrase is bpwv means the inward
vision where, as Marcus Aurelius observes (x. 26), bpwp.ev, ov\i
tois 6(pdaXp.oZs, dXX' ovx tjttov evapy&s. In the de Mundo, 399^,
God is described as dopon-os cov dAAoj ttXtjv Aoyioyi.a5. Philo had
1 82 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 27, 28.
already singled out this trait in Moses, e.g. de mutat. nomin. 2 :
Mww^s 6 1-77? dciSous <f}V(T€ws 6ca.Tr]<; kcu 6t07nr)<i — cts yap tov
yvocpov <pao~lv avrov ol duot xprjo-fAol elaeXOtiv (Ex 20 21 ), T^v
aoparov kou do~<j>p.aTov ovaiav aU'tTTOfievoi. In vit. Mos. i. 15 he
declares that the Pharaoh had no notion of any invisible God
(fjui]8£va to Trapdirav vorjrov 6eov e£a> twv oparwv vo/u'£wv), and later
on, commenting on Ex 20 21 (i. 28), he adds that Moses entered
the darkness, tovt£o-tiv cis rr)v deiS?} kou aoparov Kal do-oifiarov rwv
ovtwv 7rapa$etyp,aTU<y)v ovo~iav, tol dOiara <pvcrti dvrjTrj Karavowv.
On jat] <J>oj3r)0els rbv Gujw toG PaaiXe'ws, it may be noted that
the Stoics took the prudential line of arguing that one ought not
needlessly to provoke a tyrant : " sapiens nunquam potentium
iras provocabit, immo declinabit, non aliter quam in navigando
procellam " (Seneca, Ep. xiv. 7). Various attempts have been
made to explain away the contradiction between this statement
and that of Ex 2 14 . (a) Some think they are not irreconcilable ;
" so far as his life was concerned, he feared, but in a higher
region he had no fear " (A. B. Davidson), i.e. he was certain
God would ultimately intervene to thwart Pharaoh, and so took
precautions to save his own life in the interest of the cause. This
is rather artificial, however, though maintained by some good
critics like Liinemann. {b) Or, the Ovp.6% may be not anger at
the murder of the Egyptian, but the resentment of Moses' action
in refusing a court position and withdrawing from Egypt
(Vaughan, Dods, Delitzsch, etc.). (c) A more favourite method
is to deny that the writer is alluding to Ex 2 U - 15 at all, and to
refer the passage to the real Exodus later (so Calvin, Bleek,
Westcott, Seeberg, and many other edd.); but this is to antici-
pate v. 28 , and the Israelites were ordered out of Egypt by
Pharaoh, not exposed to any anger of his.
The fourth act of faith (v. 28 ) is his obedience to the divine
orders of Ex i2 12-48 (cp. Wis 18 5 " 9 ), which proved that he be-
lieved, in spite of appearances, that God had protection and a
future for the People. neTroiT)Kei/ is another aoristic perfect ; irpoo--
Xuctis is not a LXX term, and Oiyyavta (Gi'yh) only occurs in LXX
in Ex 19 13 ( = Heb 12 20 ). As Qiyyavw may take a genitive (12 20 )
as well as an accusative, 6\o6pevu>v might go with irpcoTOTOKa (i.e.
of the Egyptians) and Qiyr\ with au-rwi' (the Israelites). Note the
alliteration in morei ttett. irdo-\a . . . Trpocr^uan' The i^a jx-^
clause explains ttji' TTpoo-yuo-iv tou ai'p-aTos.
By one Old Latin, or at any rate a non-Vulgate, text of this passage, in Codex
Harleianus (ed. E. S. Buchanan, Sacred Latin Texts, i., 1912), a gloss is
inserted at this point : "fide praedaverunt Aegyptios exeuntes" (Ex i2 35-36 ),
which was evidently known to Sedulius Scotus (Migne, ciii. 268 C), who
quotes it as "fide praedaverunt Aegyptios, quia crediderunt se iterum in
Aegyptum non reversuros."
XL 29-31.] THE FAITH OF ISRAEL 1 83
The fifth act of faith (v. 29 ) is the crossing of the Red Sea
(Ex i4 16f -). Strictly speaking, this is an act of faith on the part
of the Israelites ; the 8i60T)aay depends on, for its subject, the
au-iw of v. 28 . But those who crossed were ol efcAtfdrres c£
AlyvTTTov Sia Mwijo-e'cos (3 16 ), and the action is the direct sequel
to that of v. 28 , though Moses is now included in the People. 81a
|rjpas y^s i s f rom Ex 14 29 ; Sia/Wvciv goes with the genitive as
well as with the accusative. The Israelites took a risk, in
obedience to God's order, and so proved their irums. But there
are some things which are possible only to faith. *Hs (i.e. ipv6pd
OdXacrcrrj) irEipaf Xa^orres ol AiyuTrrioi Kar€ir6Qr]<Tav (from Ex 1 5*
Kareirod-qa-av iv ipvdpa QaXda-o-rj, B), i.e. the Egyptians tried it and
were swallowed up in the sea. Here ireipav Xapfidveiv is a
classical phrase for (a) making an attempt, almost in the sense of
testing or risking. They "ventured on" (cp. Dt 28 56 rj rpvcpepd,
•^s ov)(l Trtipav eXafiev 6 ttovs avTt}s /Saiveiv i-rrl ttj<; y^s), Or tried
it (cp. Jos. Ant. 8. 6. 5, croc/>ias fiovXop.evr] Xafielv 7retpav,
etc.). The other meaning is that (b) of getting experience (so
in v. 36 ), which is often the sad result of (a) ; so, e.g., Demosth.
in Aristocratem, 131, Aa/?wv «pyw ttJs ckciVou <£iAias rreipav. The
writer ignores the legendary embroidery of Philo (vit. Mos. iii.
34, o)s €7ri $rjpa<; aTpairov kcll At^wSovs eoa^ovs — iKpavpu>$r) yap fj
if/ap.p.o<; kou v cr7ropas avrrj<; ovfria. <rvp.<pvaa rjvoiOyj).
Two more instances of faith are specially cited, both in con-
nexion with the fall of Jericho (vv. 80 - 31 ). During the interval
between the Exodus and the entrance into Canaan the writer, we
are not surprised to find (3 16f, )> notes not a single example of
7rt<ms, but it is remarkable that neither here nor below (v. 32f -) is
there any allusion to Joshua.
30 It was by faith that the wails of Jericho collapsed, after being surrounded
for only seven days. 81 It was by faith that Rahab the harlot did not perish
along with those who were disobedient, as she had welcomed the scouts
peaceably.
The faith that had enabled Israel to cross the Red Sea in
safety enabled them years later to bring the walls of a city crash-
ing to the ground (v. 30 ). There was no siege of Jericho ; Israel
simply marched round it for a week, and that act of faith in
God's promise, against all probabilities, brought about the marvel.
So the writer summarizes Jos 6 1-20 . Judas Maccabaeus and his
men also appealed, in besieging a town, to t6v p.kya.v tov Ko'07/.ov
8vvdaTr)v, tov drep Kptwv kcu prj^ai'wv dpyai'iK&v Karate prjp.viaavTa
T7)v 'Iepi^w Kara tov<s 'I?;crov xpoVovs (2 Mac 1 2 15 ), and one Egyptian
fanatic (for whom Paul was once mistaken, Acts 21 38 ) promised
his adherents, in rebelling against the Romans, that the walls of
Jerusalem would collapse at his word of command (Josephus,
Ant. xx. 8. 6).
1 84 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 31, 32.
The faith of a community is now followed by the faith of an
individual. The last name on the special list is that of a
foreigner, an unmarried woman, and a woman of loose morals
(v. 31 ), in striking contrast to Sara and the mother of Moses.
The story is told in Jos 2 1 ' 21 6 25 . For f\ iropvy] (" Ratio haec cur R.
solita sit peregrinos excipere," Bengel) see below on 13 2 . A
tendency to whitewash her character appears in the addition of
iTTtXeyofxivr} (k syr hkl Ephr.), which is also inserted by some
codices in the text of Clem. Rom. 12 1 . Her practical faith
(Ja 2 25 ; Clem. Rom. i 12 Sia ttlcttlv kcu <£iXo£€viav icrwdr]), shown
by her friendly (fiei-' eip^vTjs) welcome to the spies, which sprang
from her conviction that the God of Israel was to be feared, saved
(crumircoXeTo, cp. Sir 8 15 ) her from the fate of her fellow-citizens
(toIs direiG^o-acrii') who declined to submit to the claims of Israel's
God. They are described by the same word as are the recalci-
trant Israelites themselves (3 18 ). Even Jewish priests were
proud to trace their descent from Rahab ; her reputation
stood high in later tradition, owing to the life which followed
this initial act of faith (cp. Mt i 5 ).
For lack of space and time the writer now passes to a mere
summary of subsequent examples of faith (vv. 32f -). Roughly
speaking, we may say that vv. 33 - 34 describe what the folk of old
did by faith, vv. 35f - what they did for faith.
32 And what more shall I say ? Time would fail me to tell of Gideon, of
Barak and Samson and Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets —
33 men who by faith (81a irlcrTews) conquered kingdoms, administered justice,
obtained promises, shut the mouth of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire,
escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness won to strength, proved valiant
in warfare, and routed hosts of foreigners.
Kal ti en (om. D*) Xeyw (deliberative conjunctive) does not
necessarily imply that TIpos 'E/fycu'ovs was originally a sermon or
address ; it was a literary as well as an oratorical phrase. Thus
Josephus uses a similar phrase in Ant. xx. n. 1 («ai ti Bet 7rAeia>
Acyeiv;). Faith did not die out, at the entry into Palestine. On
the contrary, the proofs of faith are so rich in the later story of
the People that the writer has no time for anything except a
glowing abstract. 'EmXeiiJ/ei yap P< € SiTjyoufieyoi' 6 xpo^os is one
form of a common rhetorical phrase, though fj -fj/xepa is generally
used instead of 6 xp^os- Three instances may be cited : Dion.
Hal. De Compositione Verb. 4 (after running over the names of a
number of authors) koX aAAovs //.upious, wv airavTuv to. ovo/xara el
fiovXoifxiqv Xe'yetv, e^iAci'i^ei /A€ 6 rr/<; rj/xepa<; xpovos : Demosth. de
Corona, 324, hvikzi\ty(.i /xe Aeyov0' rj rj/xepa to. tG>v TTpoSoruyv ovop-ara,
and (out of several instances) Philo, de Sacrif. Abelis et Cairn', 5,
€7TiXeti/'ei /u.c T] f)p.epa XiyovTo. ra twv kot etSos aperwv ovoixaTa,
XI. 32, 33.] HEROES OF FAITH 1 85
Air\yo6}i.evov . . . ircpi, as, e.g., in Plato's Euth. 6 C, 7roAAa
7T€pi Twv dtioiv hirjyqaofxat, and Philo's de Abrah. 44, wv oAtyw
irporepov evia &ie$r)\9ov ( = " gone over "). For p.e yap (X A D*
33. 547), yap fxe is rightly read by p 13 D c K L P W Clem. Chrjs.
etc. (cp. Blass, § 475. 2), though yap is omitted altogether by
ty 216*. Six names are specially mentioned, to begin with.
Gideon's crushing victory over the Ammonites echoes down later
history (e.g. Is g 3 io 26 , Ps 83 11 ). The singling out of Barak is
in line with the later Jewish tradition, which declined to think of
him as a mere ally of Deborah ; he was the real hero of the
exploit. For example, some rabbis (cp. Targ. on Jg 5 23 , Yalkut
on Jg 42) gave him the high name of Michael, and praised this
brave leader for his modesty in allowing Deborah to occupy so
prominent a place. Later tradition also magnified Samson's
piety and divine characteristics (e.g. Sotah gb, 10a). Of all the
four "judges" selected, Jephthah has the poorest reputation in
Jewish tradition ; he is censured for rashness, and his rank is
comparatively insignificant. Augustine, however (Quaes t. vu.
xlix.), points out that the "spirit" came both on Jephthah (Jg
1 1 29 - 30 ) and on Gideon (8 27 ). Why these four names are put in
this unchronological order (instead of Barak, Gideon, Jephthah,
and Samson), it is impossible to guess; in 1 S 12 11 it is Gideon,
Barak, Jephthah, and Samson, followed by Samuel. David here
(AauetS tc) belongs to the foregoing group, the only one of
Israel's kings mentioned in the list. In Jewish tradition (e.g.
Josephus, Ant. vi. 2, 2-3) Samuel's career was interpreted with
quite martial fervour ; he was credited with several victories over
the Philistines. Hence he forms a transition between the
previous heroes and the prophets, of which he was commonly
regarded as the great leader (cp. Ac 3 24 ). "a.\\uh> ( + tuv?) is
superfluously inserted before Trpo^Twc by syr hkl P esh arm eth sah
boh 69. 1288 Theod. Dam. In ot 81& mo-Tews (v. 33 ) the 61 covers
vv. 33 - 34 , but Sia TTto-Tccos includes vv. 35 " 38 as well, and is reiterated
in v. 39 . The following nine terse clauses, devoid of a single koi,
begin by noting military and civil achievements. In KaTqywi-
crarro fJacriXeias, KaTaya)vt£o/xai (not a LXX term) is the verb
applied by Josephus to David's conquests (in Ant. vii. 2. 2, airw
craicrat Karayajvicra^teva) IlaXaicrrtvous SeSwKtv 6 0cos) ; its later
metaphorical use may be illustrated from Mart. Pol. 19 2 (Sia
tt}s VTTOfiovrjs KaTayaivtcra/xevos tov aSiKov ap^ovra). 'HpyaCTarro
8iKaioaui/T]K in the sense of 2 S 8 15 (/cat ifiaaiXevaev AauetS eVt
Icrpa^X' /<at rjv ttolwv Kpip.a xat Sixaiocrvvrjv iirl iravra Toy Xaov
avTov) etc., the writer applying to this specific activity, for which
7rio-Tis was essential, a phrase elsewhere (cp. Ac io 35 ) used for a
general moral life. Such was their faith, too, that they had pro-
mises of God's help realized in their experience ; this (cp. 6 15 ) is
1 86 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 33-35.
the force of itriru\ov eirayyeXiwi'. Furthermore, l^pa^a^ orojiaTa
XeoiTw, as in the case of Daniel (Dn 6 18 - 23 6 6e6s fiov ive(f>pa£ev
to. (TTOfULTa twv AcoVtoov, Theod.), eafieaav SuVafAif irupo$, as in the
case of Daniel's three friends (Dn 3 19 " 28 , 1 Mac 2 59 , 3 Mac 6 6 ).
In c<j>uyoK orojiaTo. p,ax<upT]9, the unusual plural of a-ro/xa (cp.
Lk 2 1 24 ireo-ovvTai crTojuan /xa^aiprj 1 ;) may be due to the preceding
a-To/xara rhetorically ; it means repeated cases of escape from
imminent peril of murder rather than double-edged swords (4 12 ),
escapes, e.g., like those of Elijah (1 K i9 lf -) and Elisha (2 K
6 uf - 31f -). In i^uva^Q-qaav (p 13 N* A D* 1831 ; the v.l. eveSwa-
/AuOrjo-av was probably due to the influence of Ro 4 20 ) dird
do-Geyeias, the reference is quite general ; Hezekiah's recovery
from illness is too narrow an instance. 1 The last three clauses
are best illustrated by the story cf the Maccabean struggle,
where dAAdYpioi is the term used for the persecutors (1 Mac 2 1
etc.), and Trapep.fio\ri for their hosts (1 Mac 3 15 etc.). In irapeji-
(3oXds eKXii'ai' dWorpiuy, Trapep.fSoXrj, a word which Phrynichus
calls Sctvws MaKeSoviKov, means a host in array (so often in 1 Mac
and Polybius) ; k\ivo> (cp. Jos. Ant. xiv. 15. 4, KXiverai to . . .
Ke'pas t^s <£dAayyos) is never used in this sense in the LXX.
What the heroes and heroines of mcms had to endure is now
summarized (vv. 35 " 38 ) : the passive rather than the active aspect
of faith is emphasized.
88 Some were given back to their womankind, raised from the very dead ;
others were broken on the wheel, refusing to accept release, that they might
obtain a better resurrection ; 36 others, again, had to experience scoffs and
scourging, aye, chains and imprisonment — S7 they were stoned . . . sawn in
two, and cut to pieces ; they had to roam about in sheepskins and goatskins,
forlorn, oppressed, ill-treated w (men of whom the world was not worthy),
wanderers in the desert and among hills, in caves and gullies.
"EXapof yuyalites 2 kt\. ( 35 ) recalls such stories as 1 K i7 17f -
and 2 K 4 s " 37 (xai rj yvvrj . . . ZXafiev tov vlov avrrjs /cat i£f}\6ev) ;
it was a real dvdorao-is, though not the real one, for some
other male beings became literally and finally peicpot, relying by
faith on a Kpei'o-ow dedoTao-is. "A\\oi 8e' (like Sokrates in Athens :
cp. Epict. iv. I. 164-165, 2wKparr;s 8' aiax/nos ov cr<££eT<u . . .
tovtov ovk eon o"aicrai at0"xpai?, dAA airoOvqcrKOiv o-w^eTat) could
only have saved their lives by dishonourably giving up their
1 A more apt example is the nerving of Judith for her act of religious
patriotism (cp. Rendel Harris, Sidelights on NT Research, 170 f. ), though
there is a verbal parallel in the case of Samson (Jg 16 18 air6<TTTi<rei air' i/iov ij
loXis fjiov ko.1 acdevqcru)).
2 The odd v.l. ywaiicas (p 13 n* A D* 33. 1912) may be another case (cp.
Thackeray, 149, for LXX parallels) of -as for -es as a nominative form ; as an
accusative, it could only have the senseless meaning of " marrying "
(Xanfiaveiv 7wcuk<xs). Strong, early groups of textual authorities now and
then preserve errors.
XI. 35, 36.] MARTYRS OF FAITH 1 87
convictions, and therefore chose to suffer. This is a plain refer-
ence to the Maccabean martyrs. 'ErupTvavioQiqaav (Blass prefers
the more classical form in D* aTrervfATraviaOrjo-av), a punishment
probably corresponding to the mediaeval penalty of being broken
on the wheel. " This dreadful punishment consists," says Scott
in a note to the thirtieth chapter of The Betrothed, " in the
executioner, with a bar of iron, breaking the shoulder-bones,
arms, thigh-bones and legs of the criminal, taking his alternate
sides. The punishment is concluded by a blow across the
breast, called the coup de grdce, because it removes the sufferer
from his agony." The victim was first stretched on a frame or
block, the Tvp-iravov 1 (so schol. on Aristoph. Plut. 476, rvp-Trava
£vAa i<f> ols iTV/ATravi£ov' i)(pC>vTO yap Tavry Tjj Ttpwpia), and
beaten to death, for which the verb was diroTvp.Travit,<io-bai (e.g.
Josephus, c. Apione?n, i. 148, quoting Berossus, Aa/Jopoo-odp^oSos
. . . virb twv c/u'Atov aTreTvp-iravioSr) : Arist. Rhet. ii. 5. 14, wcnrep 01
a.TTOTvp.iravi£,6p.(.voi, etc.). So Eleazar was put to death, because
he refused to save his life by eating swine's flesh (2 Mac 6 19
6 Se tov p.€T eu/cAetas B6.va.T0v p.dAAov t\ tov juera pVous fiiov
dvaSe£dp.evos avOaiptTws cttI to Tvp.iravov irpocrrjyev). It is this
punishment of the Maccabean martyrs which the writer has in
mind, as Theodoret already saw. The sufferers were " distracti
quemadmodum corium in tympano distenditur " (Calvin) ; but
the essence of the punishment was beating to death, as both
Hesychius (7rA^o-o-erat, efcSepeTai, laxypCjs Tvimrai) and Suidas
(£v'A.o) irX-qaaerai, e/<SepeTai, /cat Kpeparai) recognize in their defini-
tion of TD/i.7ravi^6Tai. The hope of the resurrection, which
sustained such martyrs ou irpocrSe^dpecoi (cp. io 34 ) tt\v dTroXuTpcocrti',
is illustrated by the tales of Maccabean martyrs, e.g. of Eleazar
the scribe (2 Mac 6 21f -), urged to eat some pork Iva tovto 7rpd£as
aTToXvO-r] tov 9ava.Tov, and declining in a fine stubbornness ; but
specially of the heroic mother and her seven sons {ibid. 7 lf -),
who perished confessing atperov p.eTaAAdcro-ovTas diro dvOpwirwv
to.5 vtto tov Otov 7rpoo~8oKav eA.7rtoa? 7rdAtv dvao-Tr]0~€o~6ai vir airov
... 01 p.lv yap vvv ^p-eVcpot dSekcpol fipaxyv €7rev€yKavT€s ttovov
devdov £wi}s vtto hiaOrjKrjv Oeov Tr€TTTWKao~iv.
In v. 36 eTcpoi 8e (after 01 p,ev . . . dAA.01 Si in Matt 16 14 )
ireipai' eXapoy (see on V. 29 ) i^Traiy^C>v (cp. Sir 2 7 28 ep.7ratyp.0s /cat
dv€t8to-p.o's) Kal pao-Tiyw — a hendiadys ; the writer has in mind
shameful tortures like those inflicted on the seven Maccabean
brothers, as described in 2 Mac 7 1 (p.do~Ti£iv Kal vevpaU at/a£o-
1 Another word for the frame was rpoxfc, as in 4 Mac 9 20 , where the
eldest of the seven famous Jewish brothers is beaten to death. Hence
the verb used by Philo (in Flaccum, 10) to describe the punishment inflicted
on the Alexandrian Jews ('IouScuoi fAa<rTiyov/j.ei>oi, Kpe/xafievot, rpoxi^/xevoi,
KaraiKi^6/j.evoi).
1 88 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 36
/le'vous . . . 7 rjyov iirl tov ifiTraiy/xov), although in this case the
beating is not at once fatal, as the next words prove (en S«
Seo-fiwv Kal cfivXaKrj';). The passage would be more clear and
consecutive, however, if eVepoi Se preceded •n-epir}\(W (in v. 37 ),
introducing the case of those who had not to suffer the martyrs'
death. This would leave ep.TraiYpwi' kt\. as a reiteration or
expansion of iTvixiraviaOrjo-av. Before Secrjidiy Kal 4>u\aKi]s, Iti 8e
probably (cp. Lk 14 26 ) heightens the tone — not merely passing
blows, but long durance vile : though the sense might be simply,
" and further." In v. 87 i\iQa<jQr\crav (as in the case of Zechariah,
2 Ch 24 20 " 22 , Mt 23 s5 ) was the traditional punishment which
ended Jeremiah's life in Egypt (Tertull. Scorp. 8) ; possibly the
writer also had in mind the fate of Stephen (Acts 7 58 ).
> E-n , pi<x0T]o-cu' (Am I 8 tirpitpv irpiocriv <TiZrjpdt<i ktX.) alludes to the
tradition of Isaiah having being sawn in two with a wooden saw
during the reign of Manasseh, a tradition echoed in the contem-
porary Ascensio Isaiae 5 1 " 14 (Justin's Dial. cxx. ; Tertull. de
Patientia, xiv. etc.) ; cp. R. H. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah
(1900), pp. xlv-xlix.
After {Ki66.<rdi)<xav there is a primitive corruption in the text. Four
readings are to be noted.
iireipda6r]aav, iirplvOrjcrav : K L P 33. 326 syr hkl .
£irpLadr)(Ta.v, iirupdud^ffav : p 1! A D ^ 6. 104. 1611. 1739 lat boh arm.
iweipaadfiaav : fuld, Clem. Thdt.
iirpl(rdr)<ja.v : 2. 327 syr v e Eus. etc.
Origen apparently did not read iireipdo-drja-av, if we were to judge from
Horn. Jerem. xv. 2 (&X\oi> i\L0o^6\rjcrav, SXKov Zirpiixav, dXXoe dir^KTeivav
fieral-b tov vaov Kal tov dvcriao-Tripiov), but shortly before (xiv. 12) he quotes
the passage verbally as follows : iXidda-drjcrav, eTrpladyjaav, iireipdadiicFav, iv
<f>6vip naxa-lpa-s airtdavov, though iireipao-dTjaav is omitted here by H. In
c. Cels. vii. 7 it is doubtful whether iireipad-qo-av or iireipda 8 'rjaav was the
original reading. Eusebius omits the word in Prcep. Evang. xii. 10 (583a?),
reading iXidaad-qo-av, itrpladrjaav, iv <p6i>(p kt\., and sah reads "they were
sawn, they were stoned, they died under the sword." It is evident that
iveipdadrio-av (written in some MSS as iirip.) as " were tempted " is impossible
here ; the word either was due to dittography with iirplo-drjo-av or represents a
corruption of some term for torture. Various suggestions have been made,
e.g. iir-qpuidrjcrav (mutilated) by Tanaquil Faber, i-jrpdd-qaav (sold for slaves)
by D. Heinsius, £<rTreipdo-dr)<rav (strangled) by J. Alberti, or iiripdrjaav
(impaled) by Knatchbull. But some word like iirvpw(do-)dijcrav (Beza, F.
Junius, etc.) or iirprjcrdriaav (Gataker) ' is more likely, since one of the seven
Maccabean brothers was fried to death (2 Mac 7 4 ), and burning was a
punishment otherwise for the Maccabeans (2 Mac 6 11 ). It is at any rate
probable that the writer put three aorists ending in -adrjaav together.
Death iv <j>6V<i> paxaipr]9 (a LXX phrase) was not an un-
common fate for unpopular prophets (1 K 19 10 , Jer 26 23 ); but
the writer now passes, in Trepir]X0of ktX. ( 37b - 38 ), to the sufferings
1 Or ivewpy\ad7]crav, which is used by Philo in describing the woes of the
Alexandrian Jews (in Flaccum, 20, fuJeres ol /xh iveirp-rjo-drjaav).
XI. 36-38.] THE PERSECUTED 1 89
of the living, harried and hunted over the country. Not all the
loyal were killed, yet the survivors had a miserable life of it, like
Mattathias and his sons (1 Mac 2 28 ecpvyov . . . cis raoprj), or
Judas Maccabaeus and his men, who had to take to the hills
(2 Mac 5 27 iv tois opeaiv 6r]pLd>v rpoirov &u£r) crvv T019 p.er avrov,
koI T77V xopTtoSr) rpofpyv (TLTovp.evot SteTcAow), or others during the
persecution (2 Mac 6 11 erepoi Be irXr/aLOV o~wBpap.6vTe<; eis tol
o-ir-qXaua). When the storm blew over, the Maccabeans recol-
lected d)S tt/v tcov (TK-qvuiv lopTTjv iv Tots opeaiv kcu iv tois cnrrjXaiois
6r)ptu>v rpoTrov rjaav vep.6p.evoi (2 Mac io 6 ). They roamed, the
writer adds, dressed iv pjXwtcus (the rough garb of prophets, like
Elijah, I K I9 13,19 ), ee alyeiois Sepfjiacne (still rougher pelts).
According to the Ascensio Isaiae (2 7f -) the pious Jews who
adhered to Isaiah when he withdrew from Manasseh's idolatry
in Jerusalem and sought the hills, were " all clothed in garments
of hair, and were all prophets." Clement (17 1 ) extends the refer-
ence too widely : oiTivts iv Beppaaiv cuyct'ois kcu /xt^Awtcus trepi-
iraTrjo-av KrjpvacrovTe<s tyjv eXevaiv tov Xpicrrov* \eyop.ev 8e 'HXciav
/cai 'EXio-aie, en 8e ko.1 'le^eKirjX, toi>s Trpo<prjTa.<;- 7rpos tovtois kcu
tous p.ep.apTVpr]p.evovs.
A vivid modern description of people clad in goatskins occurs in Balzac's
Les Chouans (ch. i.) : " Ayant pour tout vetement une grande peau de chevre
qui les couvrait depuis le coljusqu'aux genoux. . . . Les meches plates de
leurs longs cheveux s'unissaient si habituellement aux poils de la peau de
chevre et cachaient si completement leurs visages baisses vers la terre, qu'on
pouvait facilement prendre cette peau pour la leur, et confondre, a la premiere
vue, les malheureux avec ces animaux dont les depouilles leur servaient de
vetement. Mais a travers les cheveux Ton voyait bientot briller les yeux
comme des gouttes de rosee dans une epaisse verdure ; et leurs regards, tout
en annon5ant l'intelligence humaine, causaient certainement plus de terreur
que de plaisir."
Their general plight is described in three participles, uorepou-
fieyoi, 0Xi.p6fj.6eoi (2 Co 4 8 ), KaKouxoufici'oi (cp. 13 3 , and Plut.
Consol. ad Apoll. 26, ware Trplv airwo-ao-dai, ra TrevBt] K(XKOV)(pvp.evov<i
reXevrrjo-ai tov (3lov). Kaxovxeiv only occurs twice in the LXX
(1 K 2 26 11 39 A), but is common in the papyri (e.g. Tebt. Pap.
104 22 , B.C. 92). This ill-treatment at the hands of men, as if
they were not considered fit to live (cp. Ac 2 2 22 ), elicits a
splendid aside — 5>v ouk r\v a|iog 6 Koo-p,os. Compare Mechilta,
5a (on Ex 12 6 ): "Israel possessed four commandments, of
which the whole world was not worthy," and the story of the
bath qol in Sanhedr. 11. 1, which said, "One is here present
who is worthy to have the Shekinah dwelling in him, but the
world is not worthy of such." Ko'07/.os as in v. 7 ; Philo's list
of the various meanings of Koo-p.o% (in de aetern. mundi, 2) does
not include this semi-religious sense. Of the righteous, Wis 3 s
remarks : 6 f?eos iireipao-ev avTovs kcu evpev avrovs a$iovs eavrov.
190 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 38^10.
"There is a class of whom the world is always worthy and more than
worthy : it is worthy of those who watch for, reproduce, exaggerate its foibles,
who make themselves the very embodiment of its ruling passions, who shriek
its catchwords, encourage its illusions, and flatter its fanaticisms. But it is a
poor rdle to play, and it never has been played by the men whose names
stand for epochs in the march of history" (H. L. Stewart, Questions of the
Day in Philosophy and Psychology, 1912, p. 133).
In 38b it was the not infrequent (cf. Mk i 45 ) confusion of
GN and 6TTI in ancient texts which probably accounted for iv
being replaced by «rt (e<p') in p 13 NAP 33. 88, etc. ; hri does
not suit o"rrr|\aiois • • • oirais, and the writer would have avoided
the hiatus in iirl ipr]p.[ai<i. Still, ttX(xvw|i.€|/oi suits only iprjptaL<; kcu
opecrij/, and eVt may have been the original word, used loosely
like 7rAavw/xevoi with 0-^77X01019 ktX. In Ps.-Sol 17 19 the pious
€7rA.ava)VT0 iv ip-q/JiOL<;, (T0i8rji'aL i/a^as avrwv airo kolkov. For oVais,
cp. Ob 3 iv rais 07rats tw 7rerpwv. 'S.TrrjXa'iov, like the Latin
spelunca or specus, eventually became equivalent to a " temple,"
perhaps on account of the prominence of caves or grottoes in the
worship of some cults.
Now for an estimate of this 77-to-Tis and its heroic representa-
tives (vv. 39 - 40 ) ! The epilogue seems to justify God by arguing
that the apparent denial of any adequate reward to them is part
of a larger divine purpose, which could only satisfy them after
death.
39 They all won their record (p.a.pTvp7)de'vTes = iiiapTvpii9T]<ra.v in v. 2 ) for
faith, but the Promise they did not obtain. 40 God had something better in
store for us (r\p.&v emphatic) ; he would not have them perfected apart
from us.
Some of these heroes and heroines of faith had had God's
special promises fulfilled even in this life (e.g. vv. 11 - 33 ), but the
Promise, in the sense of the messianic bliss with its eternal life
(io 36 - 37 , cf. 6 17f -), they could not win. Why? Not owing to
any defect in their faith, nor to any fault in God, but on account
of his far-reaching purpose in history ; outoi irdV-res (again as in
v. 13 , but this time summing up the whole list, vv. 4 ' 38 ) ook
eKojuo-aiTo (in the sense of v. 13 p.rj Kop.iardp.fvoL ; not a voluntary
renunciation, as Wetstein proposes to interpret it — "non
acceperunt felicitatem promissam huius vitae, imo deliberato
consilio huic beneficio renunciaverunt et maluerunt affligi
morique propter deum") tV eTrayyeXtai' (in v. 13 the Promise was
loosely called at irrayyeXiai, and the plural Tas €7rayyeXias is
therefore read here by A W 436. 161 1). The reason for this is
now given (v. 40 ) in a genitive absolute clause, tou Oeou ircpl T|fAwi>
KpeiTTo^ ti irpopXevJ/afieVou (the middle for the active). npo/JXeVetv
only occurs once in the LXX (Ps 37 13 6 Se Kvpios . . . irpofiXeiru
on r^et 17 17/xepa airov), and only here in the NT, where the re-
ligious idea makes it practically a Greek equivalent for providere.
XI. 40.] THEY AND WE I91
KpeiTTov ti is explained by IVa fit] x w P l s TfJ-we TekenoQuxriv, which
does not mean that " our experience was necessary to complete
their reward," but that God in his good providence reserved the
messianic T€A.e<Wis of Jesus Christ until we could share it. This
TeAeiWis is now theirs (9 15 12 23 ), as it is ours — if only we will show
a like strenuous faith during the brief interval before the end.
This is the thought of i2 lf -, catching up that of io S6f \ God
deferred the coming of Christ, in order to let us share it (cp. 1 P
jio. 20^ his p] an being to make room for us as well. The
TcAeiWis has been realized in Jesus ; till he reappears (<p 28 io 12 - 87 )
to complete the purpose of God for us, we must hold on in faith,
heartened by the example of these earlier saints. Their faith
was only granted a far-off vision of the hoped-for end. We have
seen that end realized in Jesus ; therefore, with so many more
resources and with so short a time of strain, we ought to be
nerved for our endurance by the sense of our noble predecessors.
It is not that we experience KpfiTrov n by our immediate experi-
ence of Christ (io 14 ), who fulfils to us what these former folk
could not receive before his coming. This is true, but it is not
exactly the point here. The Kpalrrov tl is our inclusion in this
People of God for whom the TeAeiWis of Christ was destined,
the privilege of the KpdrTwv SiaOrjKr). The writer does not go
the length of saying that Christ suffered in the persons of these
saints and heroes (as, e.g., Paulinus of Nola, Epist. xxxviii. 3 :
"ab initio saeculorum Christus in omnibus suis patitur ... in
Abel occisus a fratre, in Noe irrisus a filio, in Abraham peregrin-
atus, in Isaac oblatus, in Jacob famulatus, in Joseph venditus,
in Moyse expositus et fugatus, in prophetis lapidatus et sectus,
in apostolis terra marique iactatus, et multis ac uariis beatorum
martyrum crucibus frequenter occisus "), and this consideration
tells against the theory of a " mystical " sense in v. 26 . The con-
clusion of the whole matter rather is (vv. 89 - 40 ) that the reward of
their faith had to be deferred till Christ arrived in our day. The
TcXetWts is entirely wrought out through Christ, and wrought
out for all. It covers all God's People (cp. 12 23 ), for now the
Promise has been fulfilled to these earlier saints. But the writer
significantly ignores any idea of their co-operation in our faith ;
we neither pray to them, nor they for us. Josephus interpreted
the sacrifice of Isaac, as if Abraham reconciled himself to it by
reflecting that his son would be a heavenly support to him {Ant.
i. 13. 3, tKeivov, i.e. tov 6cov, T-qv if/v^rjv ttjv o~r]v TrpooSe^op.evov
kclI Trap avTw /ca0£§ovTos* ccrei re p.01 eis Kr)oep.6va /cat yrjpoKO/xov
. . . tov 6e6v olvtl cravTov irapeo-xqp,ivo<i). Such ideas lie outside
the range of our epistle, and there is significance in the fact that
the writer never touches them.
192 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XI. 40-XII. 1.
In Clement of Alexandria's comment (Strom, iv. 16) on this passage, he
quotes io 32 " 39 (reading beafxofc /xov : eavrovs : xP 0VLe ^ '■ biKaibs fJ-ov), then
hurries on to II 38 -I2 2 (reading iXi8da9r]crav, iireipdcrdrjo-av, iv <p6vq> fi. diri-
Oavov : iv iprjfilais : ttjv iirayyeXiav tov deov), and adds : diroXeiireTai voeiv rb
Kara, Trapacnd)Tri]cnv eiprjfxivov /xbvoi. iiruptpei 70OV irepl ijfj,uiv Kpeirrbv ti
■n-poeibofxivov tov deov (dyadbs yap r)v), 'Lva fit] X W P' S VPtiv Te\eiw6wo~i. The
collocation of ttjv iirayyeXiav with tov deov is a mistake.
From the ifjp.coi' . . . ^(jlwk of the epilogue the writer now
passes into a moving appeal to his readers (i2 lf -).
1 Therefore (Toiyapovv, as in 1 Th 4 8 ), with all this host of witnesses
encircling us, we (Kal 7]/j.e?s, emphatic) must strip off sin with its clinging
folds, to run our appointed course steadily (81 viro/jLovr)s), 2 our eyes fixed upon
Jesus as the pioneer and the perfection of faith — upon Jesus who, in order to
reach his own appointed joy, steadily endured (vwi^eivev) the cross, thinking
nothing of its shame, and is now " seated at the right hand" of the throne of
God.
The writer now returns to the duty of iwofiovrj as the im-
mediate exercise of 7rcttis (io 36f -), the supreme inspiration being
the example of Jesus (i2 1-3 ) as the great Believer, who shows us
what true u-io-tis means, from beginning to end, in its heroic
Course (tov irpoKiifx^vov rj/xlv aywva).
The general phraseology and idea of life as a strenuous dydiv, in the
Hellenic sense (see on 5 14 ), may be seen in many passages, e.g. Eurip. Orest.
846 f. :
7rp6s 5' ' kpyetov olxerai Xewv,
ifsvxys dyibva Tbv wpoKelfievov iripi
bwawv, iv $ £r/v r) davetv Vfids xP €t ^ v t
Herod, viii. 102 (ttoXXovs 7ro\\d/as dywvas bpa/miovrai ol "EXXrjves) and ix. 60
(dyQvos fieyt&Tov irpOKeifiivov iXevdiprjv elvai f) bebovXwfiivrjv ttjv 'EXXdda), and
especially in 4 Mac 14 5 iravres (the seven martyrs), ibcrirep iv' ddavacrias bdbv
TpixovTes, iwl Tbv bid tQv fSaadvwv ddvaTov Zairevbov, and Philo's de tnigrat.
Abrah. 24, Kal yap 'A(3paa/x irio-Tevaas " iyyi^eiv 0ei$" (Gn 1S 23 , cp. He II 6 )
Xeyerai. iav /xivroi wopevofievos ixrrre Ka/nrj (cp. He I2 3 ) ixr)Te padvfj.f)arj, cos
trap endrepa iKTpairbfievos (cp. He I2 13 ) TrXavaadai ttjs fj^arjs Kai evdvTevovs
5ia/j.apTwv bbov, fiLfj-rjcrdfievos be tovs dyadous bpo/nels rd aTabiov aTTTataTus
dvvo-Q tov fitov, o~Terpdv(j}v Kal &9Xcjv iira^lwv Tev^erat irpbs r6 tAos iXdwv.
The figure is elaborately worked out in 4 Mac 17 11 " 14 (dXrjdws yap r)v dyuv
delos b bC avTwv yeyevrjfiivos. TjdXodeTei yap Tore dpeTT) Si VTro/j.ovrjs boKifid-
^ovcra' r6 vIkos iv dcpdapala iv fuifj TroXvxpoviij}. 'EXeafdp be irporiymvi^eTo' r\ be
fif)TT]pTu)v eirrd iraibwv ivqdXei' ot be dbeX<poi r)yuvL£ovTO" brvpavvos dvT7)yix>vL£eT0'
6 be k6o-/xos Kal b tQv dvdpwirwv /3ios idewpei), where the Maccabean martyrs are
athletes of the true Law ; but the imagery is more rhetorical and detailed
than in Ilpds 'Eppaiovs, where the author, with a passing touch of metaphor,
suggests more simply and suggestively the same idea.
"Exoi'tcs . . . diTo0e'jj.6^ot . . . d<J>opwcTes, three participles
with the verb after the second, as in Jude 20 - 21 ; but here the first,
not the second, denotes the motive. Too-outo^ 1 (thrown forward,
for emphasis) K^o^tcs irepiKeifievov "rjjULtk ke<f>09 papTupwi'. MapTupes
here, in the light of n 2 - 4 - 5 - 39 , denotes those who have borne
1 lljXlKOVTOV, h* W.
XII. 1, 2. J THE CLOUD OF WITNESSES 193
personal testimony to the faith. Heaven is now crowded with
these (12 23 ), and the record of their evidence and its reward enters
into our experience. Such Trvev/Mara SikcuW TcreXetw/AeVwv speak
to us (i i 4 ) still ; we are, or ought to be, conscious of their record,
which is an encouragement to us (kcu rj/xth) lir co-^arov tw
■f]fjiepu>v Tovroiv v 'i 2 ). It is what we see in them, not what they
see in us, that is the writer's main point ; 7repi/myu.€voi/ suggests
that the idea of them as witnesses of our struggle (see the quot.
from 4 Mac, above) is not to be excluded, but this is merely
suggested, not developed. Maprvs is already, as in Rev 2 13
etc., beginning to shade off into the red sense of "martyr" (cp.
Kattenbusch in Zeitsch. fur neatest. Wissenschaft, 1903, pp. inf.;
G. Kriiger, ibid., 1916, pp. 264 f. ; Reitzenstein in Hermes, 191 7,
pp. 442 f., and H. Delehaye in Analecta Bollandiana, 192 1, pp.
20 f.), though the writer uses the word with a special application
here, not as usually of the Christian apostles nor of the prophets,
but of the heroes and heroines of the People in pre-Christian
ages. He does not even call Jesus Christ paprus (as does the
author of the Johannine apocalypse).
The meaning of " witnesses of our ordeal " {i.e. spectators) is supported by
passages like Epict. iv. 4. 31, ovdels dyibv 1 Sixa dopufiov yiverac ttoWovs del
irpoyv/j.va<TTas elvat, ttoXXoi)? [roi'j] iiriKpavydfavTas, iroWous iwicraras, iroWovs
Beards, and particularly Longinus, de sublim. xiv. 2, who, in arguing that many
people catch their inspiration from others, notes : t£ yap 6vri /j.iya to
ayil)vi<T/j.a, toiovtov virorideadai rwv Idluv \6yiov diKacrrripiov teal dearpov, Kal
iv rrfKiKovrois tfpwai Kpircus re Kal ndprvciv iiwixeiv T ^ v ypa(po/xivwv ei)0t'i>as
ireiraixQai. In Educational Aims and Methods (p. 28), Sir Joshua Fitch
writes: " There is a remarkable chapter in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in
which the writer unfolds to his countrymen what is in fact a National Portrait
Gallery, as he enumerates, one by one, the heroes and saints of the Jewish
history, and adds to his catalogue these inspiring words . . . [He n 32 " 34 ].
And, finally, he draws this conclusion from his long retrospect . . . [He 12 1 ].
How much of the philosophy of history is condensed into that single sentence t
It is suggestive to us of the ethical purpose which should dominate all our
historical teaching. To what end do we live in a country whose annals are
enriched by the story of great talents, high endeavours and noble sacrifices, if
we do not become more conscious of the possibilities of our own life, and
more anxious to live worthily of the inheritance which has come down to
us?"
Nc<}>os (never in this sense in LXX) has its usual Greek mean-
ing of "host" (Latin nimbus or nubes), as, e.g., in Herod, viii.
109, ve<f>o<; Toaovro avBpwrrwv. In oyKOf rxTrofle'iAeeoi ird^Ta Kal ttj^
euTrepioTaroy auapTiay, o-/kov is thrown first for the sake of
emphasis: "any encumbrance that handicaps us." The conjec-
1 The broader conception of the moral life as an athletic contest recurs in
Epict. iii. 25. 1-3, (TKi'ipai, &v irpoidov apx^fJ-evos, rivusv /xiv iKparycras, rivuv 8'
oS ... oil yap diroKvrjTiov rbv dyQva tov fiiyio-rov dyuvifo/jLevois, dXXd Kal
7r\777ds \T]TTTiov' ov yap virip Trd\r)s Kal wayKparlov 6 dywv rrpdKeirai . . . dXX'
iirip avrrjs evrvx'-o.'s Kal ev5aip.ovias.
13
194 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 1, 2.
ture okvov (P. Junius) is relevant, but superfluous ; sloth is a
hindrance, but the general sense of oyKos in this connexion is
quite suitable. Compare Apul. Apologia, 19 ("etenim in
omnibus ad vitae munia utendis quicquid aptam moderationem
supergreditur, oneri potius quam usui exuberat "), and the evening
prayer of the Therapeutae (Philo, vit. Contempl 3) to have their
souls lightened from tov twv alcrdTjaewv /ecu aur^Taiv oyKov.
"OyKos had acquired in Greek literature the sense of pride, both
bad and good, and it has been taken here (so sah = " having
forsaken all pride ") as an equivalent for pride in the sense of
conceit (fastus), as, e.g., by Bengel and Seeberg. But what the
readers seem to have been in danger of was not arrogance so
much as a tendency to grow disheartened. The metaphor is not
" reducing our weight," though oy*os had sometimes this associa-
tion with fleshiness ; it refers to the weight of superfluous things,
like clothes, which would hinder and handicap the runner. Let
us strip for the race, says the writer. Put unmetaphorically,
the thought is that no high end like maris is possible apart
from a steady, unflinching resolve to do without certain things.
What these encumbrances are the writer does not say (cp.
ii 15 - 25 - 26 ); he implies that if people will set themselves to the
course of faith in this difficult world, they will soon discover
what hampers them. In kcu -n]v euircpioTaTov ap.apTicu', the article
does not imply any specific sin like that of apostasy (v. 25 ) ; it is
afiapTta in general, any sin that might lead to apostasy (e.g. v. 16 ).
The sense of einrepLo-raTos can only be inferred from the context
and from the analogy of similar compounds, for it appears to have
been a verbal adjective coined by the writer ; at any rate no in-
stance of its use in earlier writers or in the papyri has been as
yet discovered. As the phrase goes with 6.iroQep.evoi, the intro-
ductory kcu linking ttjc . . . dp.apTiai' with oyxov, ev7repi(TTaTo<;
probably denotes something like "circumstans nos" (vg), from
Trtpii<TT avai ( = cingere). The eu is in any case intensive. The
ophylact suggested " endangering " (cY rjv cvkoAws tis eis -n-epi-
crracrcis €/A7rt7rrtt' ovStv yap ovtu> /avSuvwSt? ws afxapria), as though
it were formed from 7re/3urruo-is (distress or misery). Taken
passively, it might mean (a) " popular," or (b) " easily avoided,"
or (c) "easily contracted." (a) 7reptoTaT09 may mean what
people gather round (7rcpio-raT£w) to admire, as, e.g., in Isokrates,
de Pertnut. 135 E, 6av/xaToirouai<; Tais . . . v7ro twc olvoiJtoiv
7r€pio-TaTots yevofxevais, and evTrepLaTarov would then = " right
popular." This is at anv rate more relevant and pointed than
(o), from Trepua-rafjiai, which Chrysostom once suggested (rr)v
€VKoA.ws irepLKrrafxcvTjv rj/jLas rj tt)v eukoAcos 7repi<rracriv hvvafX€vr]v
iradeiv : p.a\\oi> 8e rovro, pa&iov yap iav OeXw/xev irepiyevivdai rrj<;
d/mpTias), though Trtpiarai 05 does mean "admired," and airepi-
XII. 1, 2.] DIFFICULTIES OF THE COURSE 195
oraTos is sometimes, by way of contrast, " unsupported." On the
other hand, d7re/3io-TaTos may mean "unencumbered," as in the
contrast drawn by Maximus of Tyre (Diss, xx.) between the
simple life (a-rrXovv /3iov xal aTrepicTTaTov ko\ iXtvdtpias iTnjfioXov)
and a life t<2 ov^ d7rAu> dAA' dvayKaito koX TripL(TTd(T€(DV yefWVTL.
The former life he declares was that of the golden age, before
men worried themselves with the encumbrances of civilization.
In the light of this, euirepiVraTos might mean "which sorely
hinders " (i.e. active), a sense not very different from (vg) " cir-
cumstans nos," or "which at all times is prepared for us" (syr).
(c) is suggested by Theodoret, who rightly takes r) afxapria as
generic, and defines eirn-epio-Tarov as cukoAojs o~vvLO-Ta/j.€i'rjv re kcu
yivofievrjv. kcu yap 6<p6a\[i6<; ScAed^cTcu, olkoy] KaraOeXyerai, acprj
yapyapi^erai, kcu yXwcrcra pacrra StoAicdaiVci, kcu 6 Aoytcr/xos irepl
to x^P 0V 6$vppoiro<s. But "easily caught " is hardly tense enough
for the context. Wetstein, harking back to 7reptcrTa.Tos and irepi-
o-Tacrts, connects the adjective with the idea of the heroic on-
lookers. " Peccatum uestrum seu defectio a doctrina Christi
non in occulto potest committi et latere ; non magis quam lapsus
cursoris, sed conspicietur ab omnibus. Cogitate iterum, specta-
tors adesse omnes illos heroas, quorum constantiam laudaui,
quo animo uidebunt lapsum uestrum ? qua fronte ante oculos
ipsorum audebitis tale facinus committere?" But "open" or
"conspicuous" is, again, too slight and light a sense. If any
conjecture had to be accepted, cuirepioraXTov would be the best.
Cp. the schol. on Iliad, ii. 183 (diro Sc ykaxvav /3dAc), yXaiva.
TCTpdywvos ^Aayxvs V c ' ? °£ v Xr/yovcra.' ane/SaXc Be avrrjv 81a to
€VTrepL(jTa\Tov. Hence Bentley's note : " Lego ttjv virep iKavov
aLTrapriav . . . immo potius evTrepLO-TaXrov airapTiav." In Soph.
Aj'ax, 821, the hero says of the sword on which he is about to
fall, " I have fixed it in the ground, ev Trcpio-Tci'Aa?, right care-
fully." The verbal adjective would therefore mean, in this
connexion, "close-clinging," while ditapTiav ( = burden) would be
practically a synonym for oyxov.
Tpe'xwjiey . . . d^opwrres, for the motive-power in life comes
from inward convictions. What inspires Christians to hold out
and to endure is their vision of the unseen (cp. Herodian, v.
6. 7, 6 8' 'AvTODVlVOS €#€€ . . , €9 T€ TOV $£OV aTTofiXeTTtoV KCU TOVS
YaAivous dvT€^ojv tu>v LTnru>v' iracrdv Tt T1JV oooi' iqvvt Tpe^ouv e/xTraXiv
eavrov afpopwv re els to irpoaOev tov 6eov), as the writer has
already shown (n lf *). T6f ■n-poKei'p.evov' ifjp.Lv dywca is built on the
regular (p. 193) phrase for a course being set or assigned; e.g.
Lucian in de Mercede Conduct. 11, ao\ Z\ 6 iirkp ti}? 'A^x''? 5 dywv
kol i-Trkp airavTos tov (Slov totc npoKelaOaL Sokci : Plato's Laches,
182a, ov yap dyatvos dQXrjTai ecr/xev Kai iv 01s tj/xlv 6 dywv
irpoKiLTai ktA , and Josephus, Ant. Viii. 12. 3, 01 irpOK(.ip.iviav avrois
196 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [ XIL X > 2 -
aOXwv, iirav Trepu ti <nrov8a<TU)criv, ov SiaXeiVovcrt Trcpl tovt ivepyovvres.
For d<|)opwi'T€s cis (v. 2 ), see Epictetus, ii. 19, where the philosopher
says he wishes to make his disciples free and happy, eis tov 6thv
a<f>opu>vTa<; eV 7ravrl koI fjbixpw /cat /AcyaAw. An almost exact parallel
occurs in the epitaph proposed by the author of 4 Mac (17 10 )
for the Maccabean martyrs, ot «at e^eStV^o-av to <tQvo% cts Oeov
a<popwvT€S Kal p-^XP 1 &°-va.Tov Tas /?ao"dVous {nrop.eCvavr€<;. Acpopav
implies the same concentrated l attention as a.Tro/3\eTreiv (see on
ii 26 ): "with no eyes for any one or anything except Jesus."
'Iyjo-ouk comes at the end of the phrase, as in 2 9 , and especially
3 1 ; the terms rbv ttjs ttio-tcws dpxrjyoy Kat "fekeiwf\v describe
him as the perfect exemplar of moris in his earthly life (cp. 2 13 ),
as the supreme pioneer (dpxT)yos as in 2 10 , though here as the
pioneer of personal faith, not as the author of our faith) and the
perfect embodiment of faith (TeXeiwrrjs, a term apparently coined
by the writer). He has realized faith to the full, from start to
finish. TeXeiwTvjs does not refer to reXeiwOwo-iv in ii 40 ; it does
not imply that Jesus "perfects" our faith by fulfilling the divine
promises.
In os &vTi tt)S irpoKeijjLeVifjs auTw xapds, the x a P^- 1S the unselfish
joy implied in 2 8 - 9 , "that fruit of his self-sacrifice which must be
presupposed in order that the self-sacrifice should be a reason-
able transaction. Self-sacrificing love does not sacrifice itself
but for an end of gain to its object ; otherwise it would be folly.
Does its esteeming as a reward that gain to those for whom it
suffers, destroy its claim to being self-sacrifice ? Nay, that which
seals its character as self-sacrificing love is, that this to it is a
satisfying reward" (M'Leod Campbell, The Nature of 'the Atone-
ment, p. 23). As Epictetus bluntly put it, eav p.rj iv ™ auTu> y
to €vcre/3es Kal (rvp.<pepov, oi Svvarat awOrjvat to tvo-efits Iv rivi
(i. 27. 14). So, in the Odes of Solomon 31 8 " 12 , Christ says:
"They condemned me when I stood up . . .
But I endured and held my peace,
that I might not be moved by them.
But I stood unshaken like a firm rock,
that is beaten by the waves and endures.
And I bore their bitterness for humility's sake ;
that I might redeem my people and inherit it."
Hence dra (as in v. 16 avrl /Spwcrews: cp. Plato's Menex. 237 A,
uVSpas ayaOovs lira.ivovvrf.'i, 01 . . . rr/v reXcvrrjv olvtl tt}? twv £wv-
tcov o-wTTjptas ^AAa|avro) means, " to secure." The sense of
1 Epictetus, in his praise of Herakles (iii. 24), declares that his hero lived
and worked with a firm faith in Zeus the Father. " He considered that
Zeus was his own father ; he called Zeus father, and did everything with his
eyes fixed on Zeus (irpbs tueivov a<popu>v Ihrparrev & ZirparTev)."
XII. 2.] JOY AND SHAME 197
irpoKei/jieVT)? (cp. v. 1 ) tells against the rendering of Am . . . xapAs
as " instead of the joy which had been set before him," as though
the idea were that of n 25 - 26 , either the renunciation of his pre-
incarnate bliss (so Wetstein, von Soden, Windisch, Goodspeed,
etc., recently), or the renunciation of joy in the incarnate life (so
Chrysostom, Calvin), i.e. the natural pleasure of avoiding the way
of the cross. This is a Pauline idea (2 Co 8 9 , Phil 2 6 - 7 ), which
the writer might have entertained ; but (p. 1) he never hints at it
elsewhere, and the other interpretation tallies with the idea of
2 8 - 9 . Inspired by this, Jesus uTTCfieiee ( + tov, p 13 D*) oraupoV —
as we might say in English " a cross." Aristotle {Nik. Eth. ix.
1, 2) declares that courage is praiseworthy just because it involves
pain, xaXfTTwrepov yap rd Xvinjpa vTrofxivetv 77 to. rjSewv airi^ecrOai :
no doubt the end in view is pleasant (to Kara, tt/v avSpuav tc'Aos
rjSv, cp. He 12 11 ), but the end is not always visible. In aurxu'njs
KaTa<f>pocT)o-a$ it is not the horrible torture of the crucifixion, but
its stinging indignity (cp. Gal 3 13 for an even darker view), which
is noted as a hard thing; it was a punishment for slaves and
criminals, for men of whom the world felt it was well rid (cp.
1 i 38a ). But Jesus did not allow either the dread or the experience
of this to daunt him. He rose above " indignity and contumely,
that is to say, all that would most touch that life which man has
in the favour of man, and which strikes more deeply than
physical infliction, because it goes deeper than the body — wound-
ing the spirit" (M'Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement,
pp. 229, 230). Musonius (ed. Hense, x.) defined vfipis or ala^yvr]
as otov Xoi8opr]0rjvai 77 TrXrjyrjvcu rj i/xTTTVcrOrjvai, wv to ^aXeTru)TaTOv
■n-Xyjyai. But the special aiaxuvt] here is that of crucifixion.
This, says the writer, Jesus did not allow to stand between him
and loyalty to the will of God. It is one thing to be sensitive to
disgrace and disparagement, another thing to let these hinder us
from doing our duty. Jesus was sensitive to such emotions ; he
felt disgrace keenly. But instead of allowing these feelings to
cling to his mind, he rose above them. This is the force of Kcn-a-
(fipoi'TJo-as here, as in the last clause of St. Philip of Neri's well-
known maxim, " Spernere mundum, spernere te ipsum, spernere
te sperni." It is the only place in the NT where Kara^povtiv is
used in a good sense (true and false shame are noted in
Sir 4 20, 21 7rept tt}s i/^X*? 5 <T0V H-V o.lo"xyv6fi<;' eoriv yap alo-)(yvq eVa-
yovaa dfiapriav, /cat Icttiv cuctywti Sd£a ko.1 ^dpis). The climax is
put in one of the writer's favourite quotations from the psalter ;
only this time he uses KCKdOiKev (perfect here alone for the more
usual aorist, i 3 8 1 io 12 ) = and so has entered on his x a P° L -
Jesus thus had to suffer worse than anything you have had to
bear; this is the thought of vv. 3 - 4 , which round off the first
movement of the appeal in i2 lf - : —
198 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XXL 3.
8 Compare him who steadily endured (vnrope|i,evT)K<$Ta) all that hostility
from sinful men, so as to keep your own hearts from fainting and failing,
4 You have not had to shed blood yet in the struggle against sin.
The writer assumes, as in 5 7f -, a close knowledge of the
Passion story. Before proceeding to argue that suffering is a
fruitful discipline, with which God honours them (v. 5f -), he re-
minds them that as yet they have not had to face the worst (v. 4 ).
The metaphor of the race-course dies away into the general
military metaphor of v. 4 , where dpap-ua is half-personified as
in 3 13 . 'AeaXoyuraaOe l (the ydp is corroborative : " yes, d^aXo-
yiaaaQe " ktA.) is more than KaTako^CTaTe (3 1 ) : " consider him and
compare his treatment at the hands of these sinners (dpapTuXwy
as in Mk 14 41 ) with what you are called to suffer." Toicump' echoes
oraupoV and aiaxofT]?, and is explained by pe'xpis cupa-ros in the next
verse, while u-n-opepenrjicoTa is another aoristic perfect like K€Kddu<cv.
'AvTiKoylav is used here of active opposition, as in Ps 17 44
(pvcrai /x,e i$ avriXoyiuiv Xaov), where X ca R read dnriXoyias, and
in the papyri (e.g. Tebt. P. 138 [ii B.C.] dimAoyids p.a\r\v).
Like the verb (cp. Jn io 12 , Ro io 21 ), the noun covers more than
verbal opposition, as in Nu 20 13 and Jude u 177 avriXoyia tov Kope.
The words els auToV (or iavrov, A P syr hkl etc. : in semetipsum,
vg.) have no special emphasis ; all the writer means to say is
that Jesus himself, Jesus in his own person, had to encounter
malevolent opposition.
This is one of the places at which textual corruption began early. The
curious v. I. iavroijs finds early support in N* D* (avrotjs, p 13 N c 33. 256. 1288.
1319*. 1739. 2127 Lat syr v e boh Orig.) ; p 13 n* and D* go wrong here as in
1 1 35 , D* and Lat as at 1 1 23 (insertion). It is extremely unlikely that the read-
ing arose from a recollection of passages like Nu 16 37 (Koran, Dathan, and
Abiram) rrylacrav to. Trvpeia tCov afj.aprw\wv tovtwv iv (i.e. at the cost of) rah
\pvxa-is avrCiv, or Pr 8 3a 01 St eh 4/xi afiaprdvovTes acrefiovatv els rds eavrwv ipvx&s.
The notion that an evil-doer really injured himself was a commonplace (e.g.
M. Aurel. g* 6 afj-apravuv iavrip afiaprdvei' 6 6.5iku>v eavrbv a5iicei t the remark
of Chrysippus quoted by Plutarch in de Stoic, repugn, xvi., &5iKei<r0ai v<j>
iavrov rbv aSiKOvvra ko.1 avrbv dSiKelv, 8tclv &\\ov &5iktj, Aristotle in Magn.
Moral. 1196a, 6 &pa ravra fir/ Trp&TTwi> adtKeXavrdv, and Xen. Hellen. i. "J. 19,
rjfj.apTr)K6Tas to, fiAyuTTa. els deovs re ical vfias avro'us) ; Philo works it out in
quod deter. 15, 16. But there is no point in suggesting here, as this reading
does, that the a/iapTwXol were acting against their better selves, unconsciously
injuring their own souls, as they maltreated Jesus. The writer deals with sin
in a more straightforward and direct way, and, in spite of all arguments to the
contrary (e.g. by Westcott, von Soden, Seeberg, Peake, Wickham), this
seems a far-fetched idea here. It is like the similar interpretation of eavrovs
in io 34 , apiece of irrelevant embroidery; it " looks like the conceit which
some reader wrote upon his margin " (A. B. Davidson). Theodoret took els
iavrovs with ava\oylaao-9e = ii think to yourselves." Which is not natural,
though the Ethiopic version follows this interpretation. In some early
versions (e.g. sah arm) neither els tavrbv nor els eavrovs seems to be implied.
1 'Ava\oyl^ofiai, though not a LXX term, begins to be used in Hellenistic
Judaism (e.g. Ps.-Sol 8 7 C ve\oyio-d/xT]v ra Kpl/j-ara i%v Beov) in a religious sense.
XII. 3, 4.] A ROUSING REMINDER 199
In iva . . . ^Xoo/iewot, ckAuojucvoi (c^XeXu/xtVoi p 13 D*) might
go with Tats yf/v\al<; ifxwv (cp. Polybius, XX. 4. 7, ov fiovov tois
aw[jLa(riv i£e\v6r)aav, aAAa *ai tous i/'u^ais), as readily as Ka.fi.rjTt
(cp. Job io 1 Kauvw &k T7J if/vxo fjcov). Both verbs connect with
it, to express the general sense of inward exhaustion and faint-
heartedness ; indeed, Aristotle uses both to describe runners
relaxing and collapsing, once the goal has been passed : hrl toU
Ka/jLTrTrjpaiv (at the goal of the race, not till then) iKirviovo-i koX
eVAvovrai' irpoopC)VT€<; yap to Trepan oi Kap-vovcn irportpov {Rhet.
iii. 9. 2). In v. 4 ou-irw (yap is superfluously added by D L 440.
491. 823 arm sah boh) ktA. does not necessarily imply that they
would be called upon to shed their blood in loyalty to their
faith, as if martyrdom was the inevitable result of tenacity. Nor
is the writer blaming them ; he does not mean to suggest that if
they had been truly decided for God against the world, they
would by this time have suffered fit'xpis aip-aTos. He is shaming
them, not blaming them. " Your sufferings have been serious and
sharp (io 32f -), but nothing to what others before you, and especi-
ally Jesus, have had to bear. Will you give way under a lesser
strain than theirs?" The coming of the messiah was to be
heralded by birth-pangs of trouble for his adherents on earth,
and it might be supposed that the writer implies here : " The
Coming One (io 37 ) is near (12 26 ), as is evident from your woes ;
do not fail, but be ready for him." But this line of thought is
not worked out elsewhere by the writer, and is not necessary to
his argument at this point. To fight p.e'xpis atuaTos is to resist
to the death ; cp. the cry of Judas Maccabaeus to his troops
(2 Mac 13 14 ), ayuiviaao-Oai /txe'^pi davdrov. Me^pis atpxiTos has the
same meaning of a mortal combat, e.g. in Heliod. vii. 8, ttJs
/xe^pts aip.aTos (rracrcws.
Note another case of rhetorical alliteration in aifi. &vtik. . . . d/uapr.
dvTaywvit^o/j.ei'OL (cp. Clem. Horn. iv. 5> "7'6s rocraiiTrjv 8vva/juv durayuvL-
ffatrdai), and the use of array bsvitfcrOai above (v. J ) in the quot. from 4 Mac.
The connexion of thought in vv. 5f - is : God has not yet asked
from you the supreme sacrifice (v. 4 ), and, besides (vv. 5f -), any
demand he makes upon your courage is in your highest
interests.
5 And have you forgotten the word of appeal that reasons with you as
sons ? —
" My son, never make light of the Lord's discipline^
never faint (iKkvov) under his reproofs;
8 for the Lord disciplines the man he loves,
and scourges every son he receives."
7 Lt is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons ;
for where is the son who is not disciplined by his father? 8 Discipline is the
portion {fxtroxoi yeySvacrt, as 3 14 ) 0/ all ; if you get no discipline, then you are
not sons, but bastards. 9 Why, we had jathers of our flesh to discipline us,
200 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 5.
and we yielded to them ! Shall we not far more submit to the Father of our
spirits, and so live ? 10 For while their discipline was only for a time, and
inflicted at their pleasure, he disciplines us for our good, that we may share in
his own holiness. u Discipline always seems for the time to be a thing of
pain, not of joy ; but those who are trained by it reap the fruit of it afterwards
in the peace of an upright life.
With the interrogative k<u eKXeXijaGe kt\. (v. 5 ) the writer
opens his next argument and appeal. All such vtto/iovt} means
a divine iraiScia or moral training, which we have the honour of
receiving from God. Instead of adducing the example of Jesus,
however (see on 5 7 - 8 ), he quotes from the book of Proverbs
(vv. 5 - 6 ), and then applies the general idea (vv. 7_n ). 'EKkavOd-
vea6aL (not a LXX term) in v. 6 is slightly stronger than the more
common iTrt,\av6dvea6ai, though it may be rhetorically chosen
for the sake of assonance after cKXvopei'oi. The impa/cX^crts is
personified rhetorically; °Hns (2 3 ) up,iy (for the scripture applies
to all believers) o>s uiols SiaXeyeTcu. It is the 7rapa«A.^cris of
God, who speaks as a father to his son (vU p.ov), though in the
original "son" is merely the pupil of the sage (personifying
the divine wisdom). TJapaKX^cris in Alexandrian Judaism " is
the regular term for ' an appeal ' to an individual to rise to the
higher life of philosophy" (Conybeare's ed. of Philo's de vit.
Contempt.^ p. 201). The quotation is from Pr 3 11 ' 12 (A) :
vie, fir] oXiywpci TraiSa'as Kvpi'ov,
/xrjSe ckXijou vtt avrov iXcy^ofxivo';'
ov yap aycnra Ki'ptos Trai&evei (cXey^ci, B)
[xacTTiydi St irdvTa vlov ov Tvapa^i^trai.
After vU, |xou is added (except by D* 31 Old Latin, Clem.), but
otherwise the citation is word for word. Philo (De Congressu.
Erud. 31) quotes the same passage to prove that discipline and
hardship are profitable for the soul (ovtws apa r) eViVX^is /cai
vov6eo~ia KaXbv vevo/ucrrai, wore 8l avrrjs rj 7rpo? 6eov o/JLoXoyia
o-vyy£v£ia yiverai. Tt yap olK€iorepov uial 7raTpos 77 vlov irarpi ;). The
LXX contains a double mistranslation, (a) It is at least doubt-
ful if the Hebrew text of the second line means " be not weary
of"; the alternative is a parallel to the first line, "scorn not."
(b) It is certain that the second line of v. 6 originally ran, " he
afflicts the man in whom he delights," or "and delights in him as
a father in his son." Our writer, following the free LXX version,
notes the twofold attitude of men under hardship. They may
determine to get through it and get over it, as if it had no
relation to God, seeing nothing of him in it. Stronger natures
take this line ; they summon up a stoical courage, which dares
the world to do its worst to them. This is oXiywpeti' iraiSeia?
Kopiou. It ignores any divine meaning in the rough experience.
Other natures collapse weakly (cKXuctf) ; they see God in the
XII. 5-7.] PROVIDENCE AND ENDURANCE 201
trial, but he seems too hard upon them, and they break down
in self-pity, as if they were victims of an unkind piovidence.
, EXeYXo| J - e, ' s • • • TrcuSeoei is used, as in Rev 3 19 (ocrovs eav
<piXQ> eAeyx w *<" waiSev'w), of pointing out and correcting faults;
fiaoriyoi, as in Judith 8 27 (tis vovOirrjcriv fiao-riyol Kupios tovs
lyyt-iovTas avrw) and often elsewhere ; irapaoe'xcTai, in the sense
of Lk 15 2 . In fact, the temper inculcated in this passage
resembles that of Ps.-Sol i6 llf -, where the writer prays:
yoyyvcr/Jibv /cat oX(.yo\pv\4a.v iv 6\iif/a. jaa«pwov air i/xov,
eav afiapTrjcr<a iv tw ere 7raiSev€iv €ts eVicrTpoc^v . . .
iv t<3 iXiy^ecrOaL i//v)(f]v iv X €l P L 0"a7rpias avrijs . . .
iv tcj vTro/xeivai. Bikoliov iv Toirrois iXe-qdrjo-iraL vtto Kvpiov.
In els iraioei'av' uirofieVeTe (v. 7 ), with which the writer begins his
application of the text, the vigour is lost by the change of ck
into ci (in a group of late cursives, including 5. 35. 203. 226°.
241. 242. 257. 337. 378. 383. 487. 506. 547. 623. 794. 917. 1319.
1831. 1891. 1898. 2127. 2143 -f Theophyl.), and vTro/xeWe is
indicative, not imperative. 1 To endure rightly, one must endure
intelligently ; there is a reason for it in God's relations with us
(d»S viols iiu.lv irpocr4>ep€Tai). npOCT<(>epcTai (cp. Syll. 37 1 13 , i A.D.)
is a non-biblical Greek term for " treating " or " handling "
("tractare, agere cum"); cp. Syll. 371 13 , i a.d., and Latyschev's
Inscript. Antiq. Orae Septentrionalis, i. 2 2 28 tois fj.lv ^At/cicoTats
■7rpo(T(pep6ixevo<s tas dSeAc/)OS . . . toi? 8e ttouvIv ws iraTTjp) ; tU goes
with vtos, as in Mt 7 9 (rts ecrnv €^ ifxwv av6pwTro<;) etc., and ecrnv
after vlos is rightly omitted by X* A P W 104. 256 vg sah Origen.
A mood of bitter scepticism about the discipline of provi-
dence recurs in some contemporary Roman writers ; both Lucan
(Pharsalia, iv. 807 f., " Felix Roma quidem, civesque habitura
beatos, | si libertatis superis tarn cura placeret | quam uindicta
placet") and Tacitus (Hist. i. 3, "nee enim umquam atroci-
oribus populi Romani cladibus magisve iustis indiciis adprobatum
est non esse curae deis securitatem nostram, esse ultionem ")
speak as if the gods showed an unpaternal vindictiveness. But
the idea of a fatherly providence was far-spread, both within and
without Judaism. When our author argues : " You think that
if God were fatherly, he would spare you these hardships ? On
the contrary, they are the proof of his wise affection " — he is not
far from Seneca's position (in the de Providen/ia, iv- 7) : " hos
itaque deus quos probat, quos amat, indurat recognoscit,
exercet." And in 2 Mac 6 12 the author bids his readers re-
1 D takes eis iraiSelav with the foregoing irapa(5^x eTa ') as Hofmann does
with fiaartyol. This leaves viroix-here (vTro/jLelvare D) in quite an effective
opening position for the next sentence ; but it is not the writer's habit to end
a quotation with some outside phrase.
202 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 7, 8.
member to.s Tipoyptas p.r} irpbs oXeOpov, dXXa, wpbs 7ratSt'av tow
yeVous rjp.C)v elvat. According to Sanhedr. ioia (cp. Sifre, Deut.
32), Rabbi Akiba comforted R. Eliezer on his sick-bed by
explaining to him that "chastisements are precious," whereas
the other three rabbis who accompanied him had only praised the
sick man for his piety. There is a fine passage in Philo's quod
deter, potiori insid. soleat, 39-40, where he argues that discipline
at God's hands is better than being left to oneself in sin and
folly ; evrv^ea-Tepot 8e kcll KpetTTOv; twv dveirLTpoTrevTiav veW 61
fxaXicrTa p.ev eVioTaa-tas kol dp^Tjs d^ito^eWes (pvaiKfjs, r/v 01 yevvrj-
(ravTes iiri Tewois KeKXqpwvTai . . . iKeTevuip.ev ovv tov Oebv oi
crvv€i8r]cr€i tS)V oik«W a.&iKr}/j.a.Tu>v eXey^6p.evoi, KoAdo-at r)p.a<;
pdXXov 17 TrapzLvai. Similarly, in de sacrificantibus, 1 1, he writes
of parental care, human and divine, apropos of Deut 14 1 (mot
iare. Kvpiu) to 6cu> vp.wv) 8y]Xovotl irpovoias Kat Krj8ep.ovLa<; a£uodr)-
o~op.evoi tt}? cos ck irarpos' rj 8e €7ri/i.e'Aeia tchtovtov Stoto-ei rrjs air'
av6p<Diru>v oaovTrep, otjuai, /cat 6 eTrip.eXovp.evos Stat^epei. Compare
M. Aur. 1. 17, to apxovTi /cat TraTpl v7TOTa)(8r}va.i, os ep.eXXe ttomto.
tov Tixpov d(paipT]o-eiv p.ov (cp. v. 31). When the king asks, in
the Epist. Arist. 248, what is the supreme instance of neglect
(ayLte'Xeta), the Jew answers, el tckvcov ac/>povris tis €117, /cat firj Kara
7rdvTa rpoirov dyayeiV o-irev8oi . . . to 8e eTri8elo-6ai 7rai8eiav
aweppoavvr] 1 ; p-eracr^eZv, 6eov 8vvdpei tovto yiverai.
Jerome writes in his letter (Epist. xxii. 39) to Eustochium : " haec est
sola retributio, cum sanguis sanguine conpensatur et redempti cruore Christi
pro redemptore libenter occumbimus. quis sanctorum sine certamine corona-
tus est ? Abel Justus occiditur ; Abraham uxorem periclitatur amittere, et,
ne in inmensum uolumen extendam, quaere et invenies singulos diuersa per-
pessos. solus in deliciis Salomon fuit et forsitan ideo corruit. quern enim
diligit dominus, corripit ; castigat autem omnem filium, quern recipit." He
often quotes this verse ( 6 ) in his letters of counsel and warning. Thus in
lxviii. 1 he prefixes it with the remark, " magna ira est, quando peccantibus
non irascitur deus." The modern parallel would be Browning's hero in
Chrislmas-Eve and Easter- Day (pt. 2, xxxiii. ), who is
"happy that I can
Be crossed and thwarted as a man,
Not left in God's contempt apart,
With ghastly smooth life."
In v. 8 TrdVTes (sc. viol yvycrioi) recalls irdrra ul6V (v. 6 ). NoOot
are children born out of wedlock, who are left to themselves;
the father is not sufficiently interested in them to inflict on
them the discipline that fits his legitimate children for their
place in the home. No#os (not a LXX term) seems to mean
born of mixed marriages, in Wis 4 s (cp. Aristoph. Birds, 1650-
1652, vo0os yap et kov yvqcno<i . . . &v ye £evr}<; -ywaiicds). So Philo
compares polytheists and lovers of material pleasure to twv Ik
ir6pvr)<; dwoKv-qdevTw (de Confus. ling. 28), as distinguished from
XII. 8-10.] FATHERS AND THE FATHER 203
the sons of God. The double lore (not ^tc) makes the sentence
more vivid ; the writer supposes an actual case. In vv. 9 - 10 the
writer simply develops this idea of iraiSeta, comparing the
human and the divine methods. Hence eu-a cannot mean here
"further" (deinde) ; it is "besides," in the sense that it brings
out another element in the conception.
EItu might be taken interrogatively (=itane or siccine), to introduce
an animated question (as often in Plato, e.g. Leges, 964^, Theat. 20-jd,
Sophist. 222b), though we should expect a Zi in the second clause here or a
K<xi before ov iroXv jxaXXov. Kypke suggests that dra = el 5^ (quod si) as,
e.g., in Jos. B.J. iii. 8. 5, dr hv /lev dtpaviay rts avdpuirov irapaKarad-qK-tju,
7) Siddrirai. tcaicws.
nai&€urr)s only occurs once in the LXX, and there as a de
SCription of God (Hos 5 2 eyw Be 7rai8evT?)9 v/jlwv) ; in 4 Mac 9 6
(6 Trai&€vrr]<; yipuv) it is applied to a man, as in Ro 2 20 . Kal
cvcTpe-n-ojjieGa (" reverebamur," vg), we submitted respectfully to
them (the object of the verb being iron-epas), as in Mt 21 37 , not,
we amended our ways (as in LXX, e.g. 2 Ch 7 14 and Philo's
quaest. in Gen. 4 9 to p.77 ap.apTa.veLv /xrjSiv to 7rapap.eyicrT0v dyadov'
to ap.aprdvovTa IvTpairrjvai o~vyy£v*.<i ckciVov). In ou iroXu p.aXXoi',
the more common iroXXw is read by D c K L, and after 7roAv a
few authorities (p 13 K c D* 1739 Origen) supply the Se which is
strictly required after the preceding p.ev. The description of
God as tw iron-pi tuc Trvzup&Twv is unexpected. In the vocabulary
of Hellenistic Judaism God is called 6 twv irvevp.a.T(av Kal 7rao-^s
e£ouo-i'as 8wa'o-T7?s (2 Mac 3 24 ), and " Lord of spirits "' is a favourite
Enochic title; but "spirits" here cannot mean angels (cp. Nu
16 22 ). The contrast between tous i-fjs o-apKos iraTe'pas and tw
iraTpl twv Trkeup.dTWf denotes God as the author of man's spiritual
being ; the expression is quite intelligible as a statement of
practical religion, and is only rendered ambiguous when we read
into it later ideas about traducianism and creationism, which
were not in the writer's mind. Shall we not submit to Him, the
writer asks, Kal j^o-op-cc (cp. io 38 ^aerai) ? " Monemur hoc verbo
nihil esse nobis magis exitiale quam si nos in Dei obsequium
tradere recusemus" (Calvin). In v. 10 the assumption that the
readers were mature men (etxopef, v. 9 ) is made explicit by irpos
oXiyas Tjpe'p 01 * (till we became men). Ilpds here, as in Wis 16 6
(tis vovOeaiav 8e 7rpos o\iyov irapd^Orjo-av) etc., means duration ;
it is not final, as if the parental discipline were with a view to
the short, earthly life alone. Kcrrd to Bokou^ outois (as they
chose) refers to the arbitrariness of the patria potestas. " Parents
may err, but he is wise," as the Scottish metrical paraphrase
puts it.
The writer has in mind the familiar patria potestas of the Romans, as in
Terence's Heauton Timoroumenos (100: "vi et via pervolgata patrum";
204 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 10.
204-207: " parentum iniuriae unius modi sunt ferme . . . atque haec sunt
tamen ad virtutem omnia"), where one father is confessing to another how he
had mishandled his boy (99 f. : " ubi rem rescivi, coepi non humanitus neque
ut animum decuit aegrotum adulescentuli tractare "). Compare the remark
of the Persian officer in Xenophon's Cyropaedia (ii. 2. 14), who argued that a
man who set himself to make people laugh did less for them than a man who
made them weep, and instanced fathers — K\av/xatn p.iv ye Kal Trare'pes i/io?s
<Tw<ppocruvT]v iirixo-vdivTai.. This is wholesome correction. But it was not
always so. " Qur postremo filio suscenseam, patres ut faciunt ceteri?" old
Demaenetus asks, in the Asinaria (49) of Plautus. Ovid's " durus pater"
(Amores, i. 15. 17) was more than a tradition of literature. Pliny tells us,
for example, that he had once to remonstrate with a man who was thrashing
his son for wasting money on horses and dogs (Epp. ix. 12): "haec tibi
admonitus immodicae seueritatis exemplo pro amore mutuo scripsi, ne
quando tu quoque filium tuum acerbius duriusque tractares." There is also
the story told by Aelian ( Var. Hist. ix. 33) about the youth who, when asked
by his father what he had learned from Zeno, was thrashed for failing to
show anything definite, and then calmly replied that he had learned stoically
to put up with a father's bad temper (£</>tj /xefxadijKivai <pepeiv 6pyi]v warip^v
Kal yurj ayavaKTeiv). Sons, says Dio Chrysostom (xv. 240 M), rptcpovrai
iravres vtt6 tGiv iraripuiv Kal iraiovrai TrdWaKis vrr atiruiv. The general point
of view is put by Epictetus {Enchiridion, 30, warr/p ierriv' inr ay opeijerai
e'iri[j.e\e?<jdai, ivapax^pelv awavrwv, dp^x e<r ^ aL XoiSopodvros, iralovros), and the
connexion of "life" with iraidda in Pr 4 13 iiriXapov ^/xtjs iraiSeias, yu?j d<prjs,
dXXa (pvKa^ov avrrjv creavTip els £wf)v aov : Pr 6 23 Xvxvos ivroXJi vd/xov Kal <pws,
Kal odbs fwijs Kal ZXeyxos Kal iraidela, and Sir 4 17f \
Now for the contrast. c 8e (God ; sc. TmiScvei rjfxas) em to
<7U(i4>Epoi' (cp. 1 Co I2 7 ; Ep. Arist. 125, a-v/j./3ov\ev6vT(i}v 7rpos
to avfufaepov tu)v <£tAwv), which is explained in els to (ieTaXa(3€i»'
(cp. 6 7 ) tt]s dyioTr|Tos auTou. 'AyioTrjs is a rare term, which
begins to appear late in Hellenistic Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 15 2 tou
7ravTa i(popu>vTO<; fieO" dytoT^TOS : Test. Levi 3 4 {i7repav(o Traarjs
ayioTr)To<;), and, except as a v. I. in 2 Co i 12 , occurs nowhere else
in the NT. Here it denotes the divine life, to share in which is
the outcome of 6 dyiaapos ou x^P^s ouSels Sv|;eTai {i.e. have a
direct experience of) rbv Ku'pioy (v. 14 ). The writer, in this contrast,
is simply arguing that the divine education, which involves some
suffering, as all Traihda. does, is more worthy of obedience from
mature people than even the parental discipline to which, for all
its faults ot temper, they submitted during childhood. The say-
ings of Isokrates, that while the roots of 7ra«.8eia were bitter, its
fruits were sweet, was a commonplace of ancient morals ; the
writer is going to develop it in a moment. Meantime he alludes
to the equally well-known truth that 7rai8eia might involve severe
physical treatment.
Two examples may be added of this doctrine that education involves a
discipline which sometimes requires the infliction of pain. Maximus of Tyre
(Diss. iv. 7), in arguing that the desire to give pleasure is by no means an in-
variable proof of true affection, asks : <pi\ou<riv 5t irov Kal iraidas iraripes Kal
8i8&crKa\oi /j.adTjT&f Kal tI av etrj dviapdrepov ■}) iraidl irarrip Kal /xadrirfj 5i8a<r-
KaXos ; so Philo argues in de Migrat. Abrah. 20, au<ppovi<TTQ)v u>s loiKe tovt6
XII. 11.] THE GOOD OF DISCIPLINE 205
iari rb £dos, iraiSaywyCov, SiSacrKaXuiv, yoviuiv, irpeafivTtpwv, apx^vruiv, v6p.wV
oveiSlfovres yap, Am 5' Sttov Kal /coXdjoires enaaroi tovtuu dpeivovs rds \pv%ai
arrepyd^ovTat tHov TraidevopL^vwv. /cat {x@P°s V-^v ovoeh ovdeui, <pl\oi 5e iracrt
irdvTes. In de parent, col. 4, he explains, 5id tout' e'feori tois irarpdcn Kal
KaTrjyopelv irpbs roiis iratSas Kal ififipidiorepov vovderelv Kal, el p.r) reus 01 aKoQv
direiXais virelKovai, rinrreiv Kal Trpoir-qXaKlfeiv Kal Karadelv.
In v. 11 the writer sums up what he has been saying since v. 6 .
Discipline or ircuSeia irpos to irapoV (a classical Greek phrase = for
the moment, e.g. ThuC ii. 2 2, opwv avrov<; 7rpos to irapbv xaXz-rrai-
vovTas) ou (7ras . . . oi = absolute negative, not any) SokcI (to
human feelings and judgment) x a P&s el^ai dXXa, Xutttjs (to be a
matter of, dvai with gen. as in io 39 ).
na<ra ptv (n* P 33. 93) and irao-a 8c (p is n<= A D° H K L + 6. 326. 929.
1288. 1836 vg syr boh Chrys. etc.) practically mean the same thing, for the
p.4v is concessive ( " of course " ) and 5e is metabatic. But probably it was the
awkwardness of the double pAv that led to the alteration of this one. The other
readings, ira<ra -yap (Cosm. (221 C) Jer. Aug. ) and iracra (D* 104. 460. 917 arm
eth Orig. Cosm. (376 D)) are obviously inferior attempts to clear up the passage.
" Yorepoi' Be" (cp. Pr 5 3 - 4 (of the harlot) r) irpo? Katpbv Xnraivu
aov tpapvyya' vvrepov fxevroi iriKpoTtpov \oXrjs (.vpTjcreis), but later
on discipline yields fruit; it is not a stone flung down arbitrarily
on human life, but a seed. By Kap-nw etpYjnKoc Sikcuoowtjs the
writer means fruit (/cap7ros as often = result or outcome), which
consists in (genit. of apposition) StKatoo-uV^ (as in n 7 a generic
term for the good life as a religious relationship to God). But
why eiprpiicoV? Possibly in contrast to the restiveness and pain
(Xu'irns) of the period of discipline, when people are being trained
(yeyup-cao-fieVois) ; when the discipline does its perfect work,
there is no friction between the soul and God. But there is also
the suggestion of "saving" or "blissful." Philo quotes Pr
3 n - 12 (see above on v. 5 ) as a saying of Solomon the peaceful
(elprjVLKos) ; the significance of this he finds in the thought that
subjection and obedience are really a wholesome state for people
who are inclined to be self-assertive, uncontrolled, and quarrel-
some. He thinks that Noah is rightly called by a name denoting
rest, since peTtacnv rjpepalov 8e Kal rjav^a^ovra Kal araOepov eYi 8e
Kal elp-qviKOV (3lov 01 Ka\oKaya9iav tcti/avjkotcs {Abrah. 5). To
take tlp-qviKov in some such sense (salutaris) would yield a good
interpretation ; and this is confirmed by the similar use of elpr/vrj
in v. 14 and of the adjective in 3 Mac 6 32 , where the Jews, in the
ecstasy of their relief, ^opov? crvvtaTavTO (icppoavvr]<s elpr)VLKr}<;
o-rjpcLov. Those who stand their training reap a safe, sound life
at last. In its social aspect, dprjviKov could only refer to the
brotherly love of the community ; the writer might be throwing
out a hint to his readers, that suffering was apt to render people
irritable, impatient with one another's faults. The later record
even of the martyrs, for example, shows that the very prospect of
206 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 11, 12.
death did not always prevent Christians from quarrelling in
prison. This may be the meaning of dp-qviKov in Ja 3 18 , but it is
out of keeping with the present context.
A close parallel to v. 11 is the saying of Aristotle (see above, for the similar
remark of Isokrates), quoted by Diog. Laertius (v. 1. 18) : rrjs iraidelas £</>?/
ras fitv p/faj etvai irinpas, y\vKe2s 5e tovs napirovs. In Epist. Arist. 232,
rovs yap air' avrrjs (i.e. 5a<aiocrvvr)s) d\virlav KaTacrKev&feiv, though the dXvirla
here is freedom from misfortune. Clem. Alex. (Strom, vii. 10. 56), after
speaking of the time when we are delivered from the chastisements and
punishments as iK rQv dyuaprTj/ndrajv els iraidelav inro/nivo/xev Gwrqpiov [He
I2 7 ], adds : fxed' f/v airokirrpuaiv rb ytpas /ecu at ri/xal TeXetcoOelaiv &tto8L5ovt<h
. . . Kal deol Ti)v TrpoaTjyopiav k{k\t]vtcu ol (rvvdpovoi tQiv &Wwv de&v, rCiv iiirb
rip <ro)Trjpi irpJxrwv TeT&y/mevwv, yfVTj<70fj.evoL.
The writer now resumes the imperative tone (vv. 12f -), with a
blend of counsel and warning. The discipline of trouble is
viewed under an active aspect ; men must co-operate with God,
exerting themselves to avoid sin (v. 1 ) by the exercise of personal
zeal and church-discipline. Otherwise, the results may be fatal.
The exhortation broadens out here, resuming the tone and range
of io 25t .
12 So (5i<5 as in 6 1 ) " up with your listless hands ! Strengthen your weak
knees !" 13 And " make straight paths for your feet" to walk in. You must
not let the lame get dislocated, but rather make them whole. 14 Aim at peace
with all — at that consecration without which no one will ever see the Lord ; 15 see
to it that no one misses the grace of God, ' ' that no root of bitterness grows up
to be a trouble" by contaminating all the rest of you ; 16 that no one turns to
sexual vice or to a profane HJe as Esau did — Esau who for a single meal
" parted with his birthright." 17 You know how later on, when he wanted to
obtain his inheritance of blessing, he was set aside ; he got no chance to repent,
though he tried for it with tears.
For the first time, since the hints in 3 12 4 1 and 6 11 , the writer
alludes to differences of attainment in the little community.
Hitherto he has treated them as a solid whole. But the possi-
bility of individual members giving way has been voiced in io 29 ,
and now the writer ( 13b ) widens his appeal ; his readers are to
maintain their faith not only for their own sakes but for the sake
of those who at their side are in special danger of collapsing.
The courage of their uirofiovf) is more than a personal duty ; they
are responsible for their fellow-members, and this involves the
duty of inspiriting others by their own unswerving, unflagging
faith. The admonition, as in i3 lf -, is addressed to the whole
community, not to their leaders. The general aim of vv. 12 - 13 is
to produce the character praised by Matihew Arnold in his lines
on Rugby Chapel :
" Ye move through the ranks, recall
The stragglers, refresh the out-worn . . .
Ye fill up the gaps in our files,
Strengthen the wavering line,
XII. 12, 13.] RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS 207
Stablish, continue our march,
On, to the bound of the waste,
On, to the City of God."
He begins in v. 12 by using scriptural language borrowed freely
from Is 35 3 (tcr^vo-arc, X £ 'P £S aveipevai /ecu yovara TrapaXeXvp.eva),
but in a form already current in Sir 25 s2 (x«'P«? irapeifievai Kal
■yoVaTO. vapaXeXv/xeva), and also from Pr 4 26 (6p6as Tpo^ias ttoul
Tots iroo-iv). This metaphorical language for collapsing in listless
despair is common, e.g., in Sir 2 12 where x € 'P es ira/>«f*«'at is
bracketed with " cowardly hearts," in Philo's description of the
Israelites who longed to return to Egypt, ol p.ev yap irpoKap.6vTes
dviirecrov, fiapvv avrtiraXov rjyrjcrdpei'OL tov ttovov, kcu tus )({ipas wr
ao-Ocvcias uxnrep aTreip-qKores dOX-qral KaflrJKUV (de Congressu Erud.
29, cp. He 11 15 ), and especially in the description of moral
encouragement in Job 4 3 - 4 el yap o~v evov^eV^cras iroXXovs, Kal
veTpas ao~8evovs TrapeKaXeaas, aaBtvovvTas tc i£av€o~Tr]cra<i prjfiaaiv,
yovaariv re aSwarovaiv 6dpo~o<; mptedrjKtvi. In Dt 32 36 TrapaXeXv-
pevovs is parallel to Trapeip-evovs, and in Zeph 3 16 the appeal
is fidpaet. . . . p.T) Trapeio-Oioaav al X € 'P e ' s o~ov. 1 Ayop0cicraT€
(literally = straighten, renew) goes with ycVciTa better than with
Xeipas, but the sense is plain. In v. 13 , if iroiTJo-ciTe is read in the
first clause, Kal rpoxias 6p0as iroiTJo-aTe tois iroow up,wc is a hexa-
meter (p. lvii). By to x^Xof the writer means " those who are
lame," these crippled souls in your company.
Probably the Trotetre of K* P 33. 917. 1831 (Orig. ) has been conformed, in
TroirjiraTe (n'ADHKL, etc., Chrys. ), to the preceding ivopdwaaTe (so, e.%.,
B. Weiss, in Texte u. Untersuch. xiv. 3. 4, 9, who declares that the older
codices never yield any case of an original aor. being changed into a present),
though some edd. {e.g. von Soden) regard iroirjaaTe as the original text and
irouire as having been conformed to LXX (cp. Mt 3 3 ).
As laGfj 8e udWoe shows, iia-pairfj here has its medical sense
(e.g. Hippol. de offic. med. 14, ws p.vpe dva/<AaTcu p-qre ixrpe-
■jr-qTai), not the common sense of being " turned aside " (as, e.g.,
in Philo, Quaest. in Exod. 23 20 ol d<piAdKTcos oSoLiropovvres
8tap.apTavovcrLV t^s 6p6rj<; kcu Xetotpopou a>s ttoX\oiki<; ets avooias kcu
SvcrfSdrov; Kal rpayeias aTpairovs eKTp67T€crpai' to TrapairXrjo~iov iunv
ore Kal al ifruval twv vecav TrcuStias dp.oipovatv, and in M. Aurel. i. 7,
Kal to p.r] iKTpairTJvat els £77X01/ crotpiariKov). In Od. Sol 6 14f - the
ministers of the divine grace are praised in similar terms for
their service to weaker Christians :
"They have assuaged the dry lips,
And the will that had fainted they have raised up : . . .
And limbs that had fallen
They have straightened and set up."
1 Clem. Horn. xii. 18, ai X 6 'P es virb Sijy/xaTuv irapeidriaav.
208 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 13, 14.
But here it is the members as a whole who are addressed, and
Tpox- opOas it. t. irocni> ojiwi' means " keep straight " (ttoctlv, dative =
" for your feet") — it is the only way to help your fellow-members
who have weakened themselves. Keep up the tone of your
community, move in the right direction, to prevent any of your
number from wavering and wandering. The straight path is the
smooth path, it is implied ; if any limping soul is allowed to
stray from the straight course, under the influence of a bad
example, he will be made worse instead of better. The admoni-
tion in Test. Sim. 5 2 - 3 is interesting, as it suggests the train of
thought here between vv. 12f - and 16f - :
ayaOvvare ras KapSias ifx-uiv cvawriov K-vpcov
Kal evOvvare Tas 68ovs vp.wv ivwiriov tujv avupuwuiv
kcu eaecrOe cvpto-KOvres X°-P tv wuttiov Kvpiov Kal avOpwirwv.
<pv\d£aa6e ovv cnro ttJs 7ropvetas,
OTt 7} TTOpViia p.y]TT\p i<TTi T&V KdKWV,
X<Dp[(ovcra airo tov 8eov Kal irpocrzyyi^ovcra tw BeXtap.
The author of ripos 'Eppcuous knows that the difficulties in the way
of faith are more than mere despair. In I2 1 " 11 he has been
dealing with the need of cheerful courage under the strain of
life ; this leads to the appeal of v. 12 . But while there is nothing
so infectious as cowardice or despair, he rapidly passes on,
in vv. 13f - (/ecu kt\.), to warn his readers against some specific
temptations in the moral life. He continues, in a third impera-
tive (v. 14 ), f\pi\n\v SiwKCTe (an OT phrase, i P 3 11 ) jictA ir&rntv.
Here ue-ra goes with SicWe in the sense of " along with " (as in
11 9 13 23 , for our author avoids <rvv), and irdvTwv means " all the
(other) aytot" (as in 13 24 ). The call is to make common cause
with all the rest of the Christians in the quest for God's dpr/vr},
i.e. (see above on v. 11 ) the bliss and security of a life under God's
control. It is dprjv-q in a sense corresponding to the older sense
of felicity and prosperity on the ground of some (messianic)
victory of God, practically as in Lk i 79 19 38 the Christian
salvation ; only this comprehensive sense does justice to the
term here and in 13 20 . Hence the following /cat is almost =
" even."
ElpiivTi in a similar sense occurs repeatedly in the context of the passage
already quoted from Proverbs : e.g. 3** 2 vli, ipwv vofilfiuv /xtj^ iirCKauddvov,
tc\ 6£ prj/juiTa fiov TT/pe/rw err] icapdicf ht)kos yap filov Kal £tt/ fw^j Kal elprjvrjv
TrpoaOr)covcrlv croi . . . 3 9 dirdpxov avTif ant) crOiv K apirCov SiKaiocrvvr)i . . .
3 16 - 17 iK tov crT6/iaTos atiTTJs iKwopeverai SiKaiocrvvrj Kal irdvTes ol Tplftoi avTrjs
iv elpdvQ . . . 3 23 iVa Tropevri Trewoid&s 4v elpr)i>ri irdaas rds oSovs crov. After
Pr 4'-' 6 ~(as quoted above) there follows the promise, aurc-s 5t Tas 6p0as Troifjcrei
ras rpoxi-o.% crov, ras 5£ 7rope/as crov iv elprjvri irpodi-ei.
The conventional interpretation takes etp^VT|V with pexa irdivTuv {i.e. all
XII. 14, 15 ] A WARNING 209
your members). This yields a fair sense, for a quarrelsome church is a real
hindrance to effective faith ; the quarrelsomeness here would be due to the
presence of faulty persons, whose lapses were apt to be irritating, and what
would break eiprjVTj (i.e. mutual harmony) in such cases is the spirit of harsh-
ness in dealing with faults, censoriousness, or aloofness, just as what makes
for dp-f)VT) is a concern for purity and goodness inspired by forbearance and
patience. But all this is read into the text. There is no hint of such dangers
elsewhere in Ilpds ' E/Jpatovs as there is in 1 P 3 8 '- and Ro I2 16 '-. Our author
is characteristically putting a new edge on an old phrase like didiKere dpr)vr)v.
What elprjvrj specially involved is shown in kcu tcW dyiaau6f
ktX. Here dyiaau<5s is not to be identified with o-w<J>po<7uVr] in the
special sense of 13 4 ; it is the larger "consecration" to God
which all Syioi must maintain. In fact, Siwkctc t6c dyi.aap.6v ktA.
is simply another description of the experience called " sharing
in God's dyio-rTjs " (v. 10 ). Xwpis generally precedes, here it follows,
the word it governs (o5), either for the sake of the rhythm or to
avoid a hiatus (ou ouSeis). "To see the Lord," is an expression
common in Philo for that vision of the Divine being which is
the rare reward of those who can purify themselves from the
sensuous (cp. H. A. A. Kennedy's Philo 1 s Contribution to Religion,
pp. 192 f.). Ku'pios is God in vv. 8 and 6 ; here, in view of o 28 , it
might be Jesus (as 2 3 ), though " to see God " (vg " deum ") as a
term for intimate personal fellowship is more adequate to the
context. People must be on the alert against tendencies to in-
fringe this dyiaap.6s (v. 15 ) ; emaicoTrourrcs, one form and function of
irapaKaXooi'Tes (io 25 ), introduces three clauses, beginning each with
p.rj tis, though it is not clear whether the third (v. 16 ) is intended
as an example of fiiavQCxriv or as a further definition of the
second p.rj tis (jn£a ktA..). The first clause, p.r\ tis ucrrepiov (sc. 77)
diTo ttjs x^P lT °5 T0 " 0€ou, shows uaTepeiK (4 1 ) with diro as in
Eccles 6 2 varrepujv . . . dirb ttoVtos ov iiti9vp.rjcre.L (Sir 7 s4 p.i) varepn
d-n-b KAaicWoov has a different sense). In writing d-n-b tt}s x"P tT0S
toS deov the writer may have had already in mind the words of
Dt 29 18 (p.7] Tts eoTiv €V vplv . . . TiVos rj Bidvoia Z$ei<\lV£V aTTO
Kvpiov tov 0€ov f)p.£>v), which he is about to quote in the next clause.
The rhetorical tone comes out in the two iambic trimeters oD x w P^ ou8els
&\J/eTat rbv Kvpiov and 4Trt<XKowovuTes fir] tls vcrTepQiv dir6.
The next clause, fir) tis pi£a -iriicpias dew 4>uouaa eyoxXrj, is a
reminiscence of the warning against idolatry and apostasy in Dt
29 18 , which A (as well as F*) preserves in this form, pnq tls io-nv
ev vplv pt-^a TTLKpias avio (pvovaa ivo)(Xrj (so B* : iv X°^-V ^) K< * L
iriKpia (B* : /cat iriKpia B). The form is ungrammatical, for i<mv
is superfluous, as is icai mKpia. On the other hand, the text of B
yields no good sense, for a root can hardly be said to grow up iv
XoXf), and kcu iriKpia is left stranded ; the alteration of TriKpia
in B* does not help matters, for it is not preceded by iv x°^V.
H
2IO THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 15, 16.
Plainly the writer found something like the words of A in his
text of the LXX ; he may have omitted «mv and ko.1 iriKpia.
The confusion between -ox^V and x ^? 1S intelligible, as SxAos
and x°Aos are confused elsewhere (Blass reads iv X°^-V here,
which requires $ or eorw to be supplied). 'EyoxXfl is the present
subjunctive of ivoyXeiv, which is used in i Es 2 19 (evoxAovo-a)
and 2 24 (eVox^o-at) of rebellion disturbing and troubling the
realm. As a general term for " troubling " or " vexing," it is
common both in classical Greek and in the papyri, either
absolutely or with an accusative, as, e.g., Polystr. Epicur. (ed.
C. Wilke) Sb. 4, ov8' v<p' evos tovtwv ivox^f]o-ap,€vovs ^f-Ss, the
edict of M. Sempronius Liberalis (Aug. 29, 154 a.d.) : iv 177
OLKeta rfj yeo>[py]ia TrpoaKaprepovcn fxr] ei'ox-Vttv (BGU. ii. 372),
and Aristoph. Frogs, 709 f., ov 7ro\vv ovS' 6 ttiO]ko<; ouros 6 vvv
ivox^uv. As for pi'£a (of a person, as, e.g., in 1 Mac i 10 ko.1
i£rj\6ev i£ avrwv pi£a d/mprwAos 'Avtio^os 'Ein^avT;?) micpias
(genitive of quality), the meaning is a poisonous character and
influence (cp. Ac 8 23 ). The warning in Deuteronomy is against
any pernicious creature in the community, who by cool insolence
and infidelity draws down the divine sentence of extermination
upon himself and his fellows. Here the writer thinks of people
who consider that immediate gratification of their wishes is
worth more than any higher end in life ; they value their spiritual
position as sons (vv. 5f ) so little, that they let it go in order to
relapse on some material relief at the moment. Such a nature
is essentially fie(3r]\o<;, devoid of any appreciation of God's
privileges, and regarding these as of no more importance than
sensuous pleasures of the hour. Under the bad influence of this
(81a TauTTjs, NDKL*326, etc., as in 13 2 : Sid aur^s, A H P 33.
424* syr hkl boh Clem, etc., as in n 4 12 11 ), all the rest (ot ttoXXoi,
after one has been mentioned, as in Ro 5 15 etc.) may be tainted
(p.iai'Gwo-i), and so (cp. on io 22 ) rendered incapable of o<J>€<r0cn rbv
Kupiof.
The third clause (v. 16 ) is fx^ tis (sc. tj) iropyos r\ Pe'PrjXos (for
the collocation see Philo, de Sacerdot. 8, nopvy kol ftefirjXu aw/xa
teal ^vxqv, and for this transferred sense of ft. ( = Lat. profanus)
see Jebb-Pearson's Fragments of Soph. ii. 208) ; ftiftt]ko% is
only once applied to a person in the LXX, viz. in Ezk 21 25 <rv
(3eftrj\e avo/xe ( = ^n), then to people like Antiochus (3 Mac
2 2. H) or ^ Mac 7 15 tous fiefirjXow; x u P wcr ° i l Ji€l ' 01 ) recreant Jews.
In adding w$ 'HaaG kt\. the writer chooses the story of Esau, in
Gn 2 5 28-34 2 7 1 * 39 , to illustrate the disastrous results of yielding
to the dpapn'a of which he had spoken in v. 1 . There can be no
uiropok'TJ, he implies, without a resolute determination to resist
the immediate pleasures and passions of the hour. As Cicero
puts it in the De Finibus, i. 14, " plerique, quod tenere atque
XII. 16,17.] THE SIN OF ESAU 211
servare id quod ipsi statuerunt non possunt, victi et debilitati
objecta specie voluptatis tradunt se libidinibus constringendos
nee quid eventurum sit provident, ob eamque causam propter
voluptatem et parvam et non necessariam et quae vel aliter
pararetur et qua etiam carere possent sine dolore, turn in morbos
graves, turn in danina, turn in dedecora incurrunt." But why
choose Esau? Probably owing to rabbinic tradition, in which
Esau is the typical instance of the godless who grow up among
good people (Isaac and Rebekah) and yet do not follow their
deeds, as Obadiah is of the good who grow up among the wicked
(Ahab and Jezebel) and do not follow their deeds (Sifre 133 on
Nu 27 1 ). The rabbinic tradition 1 that Esau was sensual, is
voiced as early as Philo, in the de Nobilitate, 4 (6 Si (xu&v
d7r€i#T/S £k t(ov yaaTpbs ko.1 twv uerd yaoTe'pa. r}8ovw\> d/cparaJs l^wv,
i<p' u>v avtireicxOr) Kai Trpecr/3uo)v £$io-tolo~6oll t<S fxer avrov /cat
ueravoeiv ei8v<; i(f>' ots £$€o~tt] Kai <povav Kara, tov dSeAcpou Kai prj&tv
trepov 77 St' <Dv Xvtt^(T€l tov? yoveis TrpaypaTivearOai), where Philo
interprets the (iexdcoia of Esau as simply regret for a bad bargain.
Our author may have considered Esau a iropi'09 literally — and in
any case the word is to be taken literally (as in 13 4 ), not in its
OT metaphorical sense 2 of " unfaithful " — but the weight of the
warning falls on ^e/37/A.o?, as is clear from the phrase drri {3pwaews
pias (cp. Gn 25 28 17 Brjpa. avrov /Jpakris avTw). T. H. Green
(Prolegomena to Ethics, § 96) points out that hunger was not the
motive. " If the action were determined directly by the hunger,
it would have no moral character, any more than have actions
done in sleep, or strictly under compulsion, or from accident, or
(so far as we know) the action of animals. Since, however, it is
not the hunger as a natural force, but his own conception of
himself, as finding for the time his greatest good in the satis-
faction of hunger, that determines the act, Esau recognizes
himself as the author of the act. ... If evil follows from it,
whether in the shape of punishment inflicted by a superior, or
of calamity ensuing in the course of nature to himself or those in
whom he is interested, he is aware that he himself has brought
it on himself." The pvtas is emphatic : " id culpam auget, non
misericordiam meretur" (Bengel).
In the quotation from Gn 25 s3 (d7r^5oTo 5£ 'H<rai> t<x Trpwroro/ceta r<jj
'Icucw/3), airiStTo (A C 623), as if from a form airoSiSw (cp. Helbing, 105), is
preferred by Lachmann, B. Weiss, WH.
The warning is now (v. 17 ) driven home, "lore, indicative here
(a literary Atticism, though Blass insists that it is chosen for the
1 Jub 25 1, 8 (Esau tempting Jacob to take one of his own two sensual
wives).
2 IlopveLa. has this sense, and so has the verb (e.g. Ps 73 s7 ii-uikidpevaai
ir&VTa rbv Tropvivovra airb <xov).
212 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 17.
sake of the rhythm, to assimilate lore y<*P ° Tt Kai ^(Te'ireiTa) to
the closing words of the preceding sentence), recalls to the
readers the scripture story with which they were so familiar.
"lore on Kal (another item in his story) fieTe'ireiTa OeXup KX-npoyo-
pfjcrai (i P 3 9 ) tt]v euXoyiav ( = 7rpu)TOTO/aa as in I Ch 5 1, 2 )
dTT€8oKifjidCT0Tj (Jer 6 a0 d7reSo/ci/Aao-ev aurovs Kvpios : Ign. Rom. 8 3
iav uiroSoKi/jLacrOu)). 'AiTo8oKtfx,(i^ea8ai is common in the Greek
orators for officials being disqualified, but the rejection here is
an act of God ; Esau is a tragic instance of those who cannot
get a second chance of /actoVoici (6 6 ). The writer has again the
sombre, serious outlook which characterizes a passage like 6 4 " 8 .
The very metaphor of plant-growth occurs here as there, and
aire&oKi/xdo-dr) recalls dSo/ayaos. Merdvoia is impossible for certain
wilful sins ; certain acts of deliberate choice are irrevocable and
fatal. Why this was so, in Esau's case, is now explained;
fieTciyoias y^P totto^ oi\ eupe (evptaKw = obtain, with ck^tciv as
often in LXX, e.g. Dt 4 29 ), Kai'-n-ep p-e-ra SaKpiW (emphatic by
position) £K£T]Tr)aas air-qv (i.e. fxtTavoiav. " MeTavotas toVos is, in
fact, fxeTdvoia. . . . When /act. tottov is taken up again, the mere
secondary toVos disappears, and it is avr-qv, not airov, agreeing
with the great thing really sought," Alford). If the writer used
his usual A text of the LXX, he would not have found any
allusion to the tears of Esau in Gn 27 s8 , but the tears were
retained, from the Hebrew, in Jub 26 s3 , in other texts of the
LXX, and in JosephuS (Ant. i. 18. 7, 7re'v#os f;yev i-rrl rfj Sia^apTta.
Kai avTov Tots 8d«pvcriv dx^o'/tevos 6 irarrip ktA.). 1 " Those tears
of Esau, the sensuous, wild, impulsive man, almost like the cry
of some • trapped creature,' are among the most pathetic in the
Bible" (A. B. Davidson). AuTrp refers to p.€Tawoias, not to
euXoyias (which would require p.eTayoias • . . cupec to be taken
as a parenthesis, a construction which is wrecked on the anti-
thesis between eupev and eK^Trjoras). The peTdfoia is not a
change in the mind of Isaac, which would require some additional
words like tou iraTpos. Besides, Esau does not beseech Isaac to
alter his mind. Nor can it refer to a change in God's mind. It
is "a change of mind" on Esau's part, "undoing the effects of
a former state of mind" (A. B. Davidson). Bitterly as Esau
regretted his hasty action, he was denied any chance of having
its consequences reversed by a subsequent /x.€Tavoia ; this is the
writer's meaning. 'ASvvarov 7rdAiv avaKaivi&iv eis fieTa.voi.av IS the
law of God for such wilful offenders, and to try for a second
(jLerdvoia is vain. Such is the warning that our author deduces
from the tale of Esau.
1 There is a striking parallel in De Mercede Conductis, 42, where
Lucian describes an old man being met by 17 fitrdvoia 5a.Kpvov<ra is oiidtv
6<pe\o*.
XII. 17.] THE SIN OF ESAU 21 3
This inexorable view agrees with Philo's idea [Leg. Alleg. iii. 75, woWals
yap \j/vx<us peravota xp7?<r0at povXrjdeicais ovk iirerpeipev 6 6e6s) that some,
like Cain ' (quod deter, pot. 26, rip hk p.i\ Sexo^vip f-era.voi.av Kalv fit'
virep^oXijv (Lyovs), are too bad to repent, though Philo illustrates it here not
from Esau, but from Lot's wife. In de Spec. Leg. ii. 5 he declares that
luxurious spendthrifts are bvaKadaproi Kal dvo-laroi, ws p-rjSt 6e<p rip rrpi Qvaiv
IXeip eiiyyvw/xris a^iovcdai. In Jub 35'* Isaac tells Rehekah that " neither Esau
nor his seed is to be saved." But the idea of Ilpds 'Eppalovs is made still more
clear by the use of fitTavotas r6trov as an expression for opportunity or
chance to repent. This is a contemporary Jewish phrase ; cp. Apoc. Bar
85 12 ("For when the Most High will bring to pass all these things, there will
not then be an opportunity for returning . . . nor place of repentance"),
4 Es 9 12 ("while a place of repentance was still open to them, they paid
no heed"), which goes back to Wis 12 10 Kplvuv 5t Kara fipaxv idLSovs riwov
p.eravoias (of God punishing the Canaanites). It is linguistically a Latinism, 2
which recurs in Clem. Rom. J 6 (iv yeve$ /cat yevtq. p.eravotas rdirov Zduicev
6 5eo~ir6TT]5 rots f$ov\op.tvois tirio~rpa(pr)vai tir avrbv) and Tatian (Orat. ad
Graecos, 15, 5t& tovto yovv 7) ruiv daipdvwv vTrbo-raats ovk ^x €l pieTavolas
rdirov). But a special significance attaches to it in 4 Esdras, for example,
where the writer (e.g. in 7 102f -) rules out any intercession of the saints for the
ungodly after death, in his desire to show that "the eternal destiny of the
soul is fixed by the course of the earthly life" (G. H. Box, The Ezra-
Apocalypse, pp. 154, 155). Here, as in the Slavonic Enoch (S3 1 ), which also
repudiates such intercession, "we may detect the influence of Alexandrine
theology, which tended to lay all stress upon the present life as determining
the eternal fate of every man." The author of Wpbs 'E/Spatous shared this
belief (cp. 9 27 ) ; for him the present life of man contains possibilities which
are tragic and decisive. He ignores deliberately any intercession of saints or
angels for the living or for the dead. But he goes still further, with Philo
and others, in holding that, for some, certain actions fix their fate beyond any
remedy. He regards their case as hopeless ; characters like Esau, by an
act of profane contempt for God, are rejected for ever, a second p-erdvoia being
beyond their reach.
The connexion (yap) between the finale (vv. 18-29 ) and what
precedes lies in the thought that the higher the privilege, the
higher the responsibility. In Leg. Alleg. iii. i, Philo quotes Gn
25 27 to prove that virtue's divine city is not meant for human
passions ; ov yap iri^vKCv rj twv ttolOwv OrjpzvTiKr} /ca/cta rrjv dpeT^s
tt6X.lv, wickedness banishing men from the presence and sight
of God. But this line of thought is not in the writer's mind.
It is more relevant to recall that Esau typifies exclusion from
God in Jub 15 30 ("Ishmael and his sons and his brothers and
Esau, the Lord did not cause to approach Him ") ; yet even
this is not needful to explain the turn of thought. The writer is
continuing his grave warning. As vv. 14-17 recall the first warning
of 6 4 - 8 , so he now proceeds to reiterate the second warning of
I0 26-3i j reminding his readers that they stand in a critical position,
1 Philo read p.el^oiv r) atria plov rod a<pedrjvai in Gn 4 1S .
2 Livy, xliv. 10, " poenitentiae relinquens locum " (cp. xxiv. 26, "locus
poenitendis ") ; cp. Pliny's Epp. x. 97, "ex quo facile est opinari, quae turba
hominum emendari possit, si sit poenitentiae locus," where the phrase is used
in quite a different sense, of a chance to give up Christianity.
214 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 17, 18.
in which any indifferences or disobedience to God will prove
fatal. This is the note of vv. 25 " 29 in particular. But he leads up
to the appeal by describing in a vivid passage the actual position
of his readers before God (vv. 18 " 24 ) ; their new status and en-
vironment appeals even more powerfully and searchingly for an
unworldly obedience to God than the old status of the People.
18 You have not come {tTpo<re\i]\vQare) to what you can toitch, to "flames
of fire" to "mist" and "gloom" and "stormy blasts, 19 to the blare of a
trumpet and to a Voice " whose words made those who heard it refuse to hear
another syllable 20 (for they could not bear the command, " If even a beast
touches the mountain, it must be stoned") — 21 indeed, so awful was the sight
that Moses said, " / am terrified and aghast. " 22 You have come (irpoac\T)Xv-
8aT£) to mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to
myriads of angels in festal gathering, 23 to the assembly of the first-born
registered in heaven, to the God of all as fudge, to the spirits of just men made
perfect, ™ to Jesus who mediates (8 8 9 15 ) the new covenant, and to the sprinkled
blood whose message is nobler than AbePs.
The passage moves through two phases (vv. 18 " 21 and 22 - 24 ),
contrasting the revelation at mount Sinai (2 2 io 28 ) with the new
SiaOrJKr}, the one sensuous, the other spiritual ; the one striking
terror with its outward circumstances of physical horror, the
other charged with grace and welcome as well as with awe. The
meditation and appeal are woven on material drawn from the
LXX descriptions of the plague of darkness on Egypt (Ex io 21t
{(/r]\a(f)r]T6v (tkotos . . . cycVero ctkotos yvo^>os BvtXka) and the
theophany at Sinai (Dt 4 11 7rpoarj\0eT€ ko.1 Io-t^tc vtto to opos*
KGU TO OpOS £K0ll€TO TTVpL €(i)<S TOV OVpCLVOV, (TKOTOS, yVOc/>OS, OveXXa,
<f>wvr] fL€ydXr], and Ex i9 12f - irpoo-€X iT€ caurois tov dva/^vai 6is to
opos km. Otyelv ti olvtov' 7ras 6 at^apcvos tov opovs 6a.va.Tai tcXcitttjoci
. . . Iv XLdois \i6o(So\r)6r)o-€Tai 77 fio\(8i KaTaTO^tvdrjartTaC idv tc
kttJvos lav tc dvOpoyiro'i, ov £,r]o~eTai . . . koI iyivovro <p<ava\ kcu
dcrrpa7rai /ecu ve<f>€\r] yvo<pw$r]<; iir opous Setvct, <ptovr) t^s crdA.7riyyos
rjxd V-tya' Kat lirTorjOrj 7ras 6 Aaos 6 iv Trj ■jrap€/x(3oXrj). In V. 18
the text is difficult and perhaps corrupt. *l>r]\a<j>a)jieVw opei
would be equivalent to \j/T)\a<pr)Tw opei, a tangible, material
mountain ; but as opei is a gloss (added, from v. 22 , by D K L
2 55 syr 11 * 1 arm Athan. Cosm. etc., either before or after if/rjX.),
though a correct gloss, v\r. may be taken (a) either with irupi,
(b) or independently. In the former case, (a) two constructions
are possible, (i) One, as in vg ("ad tractabilem et accensi-
bilem ignem "), renders " to a fire that was material (or palpable)
and ablaze " ; (ii) " to what was palpable and ablaze with fire "
(irvpi in an ablative sense), (i) is a daring expression, and the
implied contrast (with v. 29 ) is too remote. The objection to (ii)
is that 7rupt here, as in the OT, goes with the following datives.
It is on the whole preferable (b) to take i/^AcwpcDpeV^ by itself
XII. 19-21.] THE TERRORS OF SINAI 21 5
(sc. Tivi). The mountain could not be touched indeed (v. 20 ), but
it was a tangible object which appealed to the senses. This is
the point of contrast between it and the Iiwc opos, the present
participle being equivalent to the verbal adjective xj/rjXatfyqTo^.
Kypke connects 1/'. with irvpl in the sense of " touched by
lightning" ("igne tactum et adustum"), comparing the Latin
phrase " fulmine tactum." But the Greek term is 6Cyyaveiv, and
in any case this interpretation really requires opei, the mountain
"sundering" under the lightning touch of God (Ps 144 5 etc.).
Two conjectures have been proposed, ityei vevapuikiiv^ by G. N. Bennett
{Classical Review, vi. 263), who argues that this "would fit in exactly with
the OT accounts, which represent the summit of the mountain as burnt with
fire, while lower down it was enveloped in a dense cloud " ; and Tre<pe\pa\ar
nivw (5pe«) by E. C. Selwyn (Journal of Theological Studies, ix. 133, 134) =
"calcined" (a calcined volcano). Others (e.g. P. Junius) less aptly insert
ov or fil) before ^Aa^w/LteVy, to harmonize the phrase with v. 20 .
In the rest of the description, £64>w is a poetical word (cp.
de Mundo, 400^7, heaven 7ravros £,6<pov kcu Atolktov Kivrj/xaTos kc^w-
piapevov), which the writer prefers to ctkoYos. Kal OueXXt) —
OveWrj, a hurricane, is defined by Hesychius as dvip.ov ava-Tpotpr]
Kal 60/07, V Karaiyts (cp. Horn. Od. 5. 317), and in de Mundo, 395^,
as 7rv£V/xa fiiaiov Kal acpvu) TrpocraWofievov. In V. 19 r\-^tj (VXV
'Attlkol' ^xos"EAAt?v£s, Moeris) is a synonym for the LXX <f>u>kfj,
which the writer intends to use immediately. Philo had already
used ^X os in ^ e Decalogo, 1 1 : iravra 8' ws cikos to. irepl rbv tottov
l6avp.aTOvpya.TO, ktvttois (SpovTwv p.ci£,oi><DV 77 wotc ^uypeiv 6.Kod<;,
ao-TpaTrwv Xduif/tcriv avyoeiSeoTdVais, dopdrov o*aA7rtyyos r]XV ""po?
p.rjKio-Tov a.TTOT€ivovo~rj . . . irvpo<i ovpaviov (popa Ka7rv<5 fiaOtl to. iv
kvkXo) o-vo-Kia^ovTos. In de Spec. Leg. ii. 22 he explains that the
<pajvT) craX7rtyyo9 announced to all the world the significance of
the event. Finally, Kal (Jxoyfj pT)|i,dTwf (the decalogue in Dt 4 12 ),
■fjs {i.e. the <pwvrj) 01 aicouaarres irapr|Trj<7ayTo utj (pleonastic nega-
tive as in Gal 5 7 ; hence omitted by K* P 467) irpoaTee^at (the
active irpoo-Otlvai, in A, is less apt) auTois {i.e. the hearers) \6yov
(accus. and infinitive construction after pvq, cp. Blass, § 429).
The reference in v. 20 is to the scene described in Dt 5 23f -, where it
is the leaders of the nation who appeal in terror to Moses to take
God's messages and orders for them : Kal vvv fir] d-n-o6a.vwp.ev, on
i£ava\wo~et. r)p.a<s to 7rvp to fteya tovto, iav Trpoa6wp.t6a t^/jicis
aKovaac t^v <pwvr]v Kupiov toS 6eov rjp.(ov cti, Kal a7ro#avou/x«0a.
But in Ex 20 19 it is the people, as here, who appeal to Moses,
p.r) XaXeiVw 7rp6s 17/i.as 6 6eos, p.rj d-7ro6dvwp.ev. T6 SiaaTeXXdp.eyoi'
(in Ex 19 13 , see above) is passive. Aiao-reXXouai is said by Anz
{Subsidia, 326 f.) not to occur earlier than Plato; here, as in
Jth n 12 (ocra Sieo-TciXaTo avToh 6 #eds), of a divine injunction.
In v. 21 fyavraloiievov is not a LXX term (for the sense, cp. Zee 10 1
2l6 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 21-23
kvplos iiroL7]<rev (fiavTacrias, of natural phenomena like rain) ; it is
used here for the sake of alliteration (<f>ofi. <pavT.). To prove
that even Moses was affected by the terrors of Sinai, the writer
quotes from Dt 9 19 ?k<|>o|36s elfu, adding rhetorically tea! cirpopos.
He forgets that Moses uttered this cry of horror, not over the
fearful spectacle of Sinai but at a later stage, over the worship of
the golden calf. For eVTpopos, cp. 1 Mac 13 2 evrpofios xal «K<po/?os
(v.l. €fi(po/Sos). The phrase lvTpop.o<s ycvo/Acvos is applied by
Luke to the terror of Moses at the <pu>vr) KvpCov out of the burning
bush (Ac 7 32 ).
Assonance led to ZKrpofios (kD*) or ?/x(po(3o$ (M 241. 255. 489. 547.
1739 Thdt.). "Evrpo/ios was read by Clem. Alex. (Protrept. ix. 2).
The true position of Christians is now sketched (vv. 22 " 24 ).
'AXXa TTpoo-e\r|\u0aT€ Iiwy opei ica! iroXei (n 10,16 ) Geou £wrros,
the author adding 'UpoucraXTjp. liroupaKiu (n 16 ) in apposition to
7ro'Aet, and using thus the archaic metaphors of Is 18 7 , Am i 2 ,
Mic 4 lf - etc., in his picture of the true fellowship. Paul had
contrasted mount Sinai ( = the present Jerusalem) with 17 avw
'lepovo-aXrj/jL. Our author's contrast is between mount Sion
( = 'lepovaaXrip, i-n-ovpdvios) and mount Sinai, though he does not
name the latter. From the 7roAis he now passes to the TroXn-at.
In Chagiga, 126, i. 33, Resh Lakish deduces from 1 K 8 13 and Is 63"
that zebul, the fourth of the seven heavens, contains " the heavenly Jerusalem
and the temple," i.e. as the residence of deity ; while Ma'on, the fifth heaven,
holds the " companies of ministering angels."
The second object of irpoaeXrjXuSaTe is ical p,upi<£<ni> (so
En 40 1 : " I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times
ten thousand before the Lord of spirits") dyyAwK, with which
irakriyupet must be taken, leaving the following k<u to introduce
the third object (v. 23 ). The conception of the angels as p.vpid8t<;
goes back to traditions like those voiced in Ps 68 17 (to app.a tov
deov p.vptoTrXd(TLov, ^tXtdSe? evOrjvovvTcav' 6 Kuptos iv avTots ev Siva)
and Dan 7 10 (p-vpiai /xvpidSes). IIav»;yupis was a term charged
with Greek religious associations (cp. R. van der Loeff, De Ludis
Eleusintis, pp. 85 f.), but it had already been adopted by Greek
Jews like the translators of the LXX and Josephus for religious
festivals, nanrjyupei describes the angelic hosts thronging with
glad worship round the living God. Their relation to God is
noted here, as in i 14 their relation to human beings. *Ev0a
iravYiyvpis eVei x a P°-> as Theophylact observes (iXapas etOvp-ias,
rjv 7ravqyvpL<i eVt^Tet, Philo, in Flacc. 14) ; but the joy of
Lk 15 10 is not specially mentioned. Chrysostom's suggestion is
that the writer ivravOa ttjv ^apai/ SeiKvuo-i »cai rrjv eu<ppo<ruvr;v avrt
tov yvocpov kcu tov o-KOTOUs kclL t^s ^ue'XXijs. Augustine (Quaes t.
i. 168: "accessistis ad montem Sion et ad ciuitatem dei Hier-
XII. 23.] THE CELESTIAL CITIZENS 2\J
usalem et ad milia angelorum exultantium ") seems to imply not
only that ira^yupei goes with dyyeXuc, but that he knew a text
with some word like Travr]yvpi£,6vTU)v (Blass), as is further proved
by boh ("keeping festival"), Orig lat (laetantium, collaudantium),
and Ambrose. There is a hint of this in Clem. Alex. Protrept.
ix. 6, 7, avrrj yap rj 7rpu>TOTOKos iiacXricria rj Ik iroWtov ayaOutv
crvyKf.ip.ivq 7rai8itov' ravr' eari ra 7rpa)roTO/ca to. h'aTroy€ypap.peva
iv ovpavois Kal Tocravrais p.vpid(Tiv dyyiXwv <jvp.TravqyvpL£pvTa.
The human iroXlrat. are next (v. 23 ) described as ckkXtjo-ioi
irpuTOTOKwi' a.-noyzypap.\i.ivtav iv oipavols. (For the collocation of
angels and men, see En 39 5 " Mine eyes saw their [i.e. the
saints'] dwellings with His righteous angels, and their resting-
places with the holy "; the Enoch apocalypse proceeding to the
intercession of the angels ("and they petitioned, and interceded,
and prayed for the children of men ") which the Christian writer
deliberately omits.) The phrase describes what the author else-
where calls 6 Aads (tov 6eov), but in two archaic expressions,
chosen to emphasize what Paul would have called their election.
They are TrpwroroKoi (as Israel had been 7rpwTdTOKos, Ex 4 22 etc.),
with a title to God's blessing (v. 16 TrpwToroKia). The choice of
the plural instead of the collective singular was due to the
previous plural in p.vpid(riv dyyc'Awv. In aTroY€Ypap.ueVa>i> iv
oupavols there is a passing allusion to the idea of the celestial
archives or register — a favourite poetical figure in which the
Oriental expressed his assurance of salvation. 1 As in Lk io 20
so here, the phrase refers to men on earth, to the church militant,
not to the church triumphant; otherwise iv oupayoig would be
meaningless.
This interpretation, which groups vravijyvpei with what precedes, is current
in nearly all the early versions and Greek fathers, who generally assume it
without question. The real alternative is to take (ivpidviv as further defined
by dyyiXwv iravriyiipei Kal iKKK-qala vpuTordKUv diroyeypafifj.^vuv iv oupavols.
This introduces and leaves nvpidaiv rather abruptly, and implies that angels
alone are referred to (so recently Dods, von Soden, Peake, Seeberg), called
irpuiTordicoi as created before men. But, while a later writer like Hermas
( Vis. iii. 4) could speak of angels as oJ irpGrroi KTiadivres, diroY€'ypa|j.|i6vuv
cannot naturally be applied to them. Hermas himself ( Vis. i. 3) applies that
term to men (iyypa.<prj(rovTai tls ras fil(3\ovs ttjs fw^s fierd tQ>v dylwv).
A fresh sweep of thought now begins ( 23 *- 24 ). The writer
is composing a lyrical sketch, not a law-paper ; he reiterates the
idea of the fellowship by speaking of God, men, and him by whom
this tie between God and men has been welded, the allusion
to Jesus being thrown to the end, as it is to form the starting-
point for his next appeal (vv. 25f -). In Kal tcpm} 0eu -ndvrav it is
not possible, in view of g 27 (fiera. Se tovto k/kW) and of the
punitive sense of KpCw in io 30 , to understand Kpn~f)<; as defender
1 Clem. Horn. ix. 22, ret dvd/xara iv oiipavif ws del fwvrwv dvaypcMpTjvai.
218 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 23, 24.
or vindicator (so, e.g., Hofmann, Delitzsch, Riggenbach). The
words mean "to the God of all (angels and men, the living and
the dead, Ac io 42 ), and to him as Kpirqs, to whom you must
account for your life." It is implied that he is no easy-going
God. The contrast is not between the mere terrors of Sinai
and the gracious relationship of Sion, but between the outward,
sensuous terror of the former and the inward intimacy of the
latter — an intimacy which still involves awe. In the next phrase,
TTvcu'fiaTa SiKaiwi/ means the departed who have in this life been
SiKaioi in the sense of io 8Sfi ; TCTeXeiwp.eVui' is added, not in the
mere sense of "departed" (reXevrav — TtXetouo-^ai, TtXeiovv), but
to suggest the work of Christ which includes the Stxaiot, who
had to await the sacrifice of Christ before they were " perfected "
(n 40 ). If this involves the idea of a descent of Christ to the
under-world, as Loofs (e.g. in ERE. iv. 662) argues, it implies
the group of ideas mentioned in 2 14 , which may have lain in the
background of the writer's thought. At any rate the " perfect-
ing " of these Si'/caioi, their TeXeiwais, was due to Jesus ; hence
(v. 24 ) the writer adds, teat oia0r]icr|s via.% fAeo-iTrj 'It](tou (again at
the end, for emphasis), where ve'as is simply a synonym for Kaivvys
(8 8 etc.). The classical distinction between the two terms was
being dropped in the kqivj). Tt)s ve'as 'UpovcraXrjfj. occurs in Test.
Dan 5 12 , and the two words are synonymous, e.g., in Test. Levi
8 14 {lTnK\t]Qr\(TeTo.i clvt<Z ovo/xa kolivov, on /focriAevs . . . Troirycrci
Upardav ve'av). Indeed Blass thinks that the unexampled Siatfr/K^s
veas was due to a sense of rhythm ; the author felt a desire to
reproduce the — <_, w w — of the preceding w TeTeAeiwju.eVwi'.
In Cambodia (cp. ERE. iii. 164) those who are present at a death-bed all
" repeat in a loud voice, the patient joining in as long as he has the strength,
' Arahan ! Arahan!' 'the saint! the just one!' (Pali araham= i the
saint,' 'one who has attained final sanctification ')." Bleek is so perplexed
by ko\ irvevfi. 8ik. re\. coming between 0e£ and 'Itjcov that he wonders
whether the author did not originally write the phrase on the margin, intending it
to go with iravrjyvpei or ^kk\t](tIi}. The curious misreading of D d, re^e/xeXio;-
fitvwv, underlies Hilary's quotation (tract, in Ps. 124: "ecclesia angelorum
multitudinis frequentium — ecclesia primitivorum, ecclesia spirituum in domino
fundatorum " ). Another odd error, wvevfiaTi for irvtvuacn, appears in D
(boh?) d and some Latin fathers (e.g. Primasius) — a trinitarian emendation
( = io 2 »).
In SiaOrJKYjs ve'as, as in 13 20 , the writer recalls the conception
with which he had been working in the middle part of his argu-
ment (chs. 7-10); now he proceeds to expand and explain the
allusion in ical al'/xaTi parriauou (9 19f> ) Kpeirrov (adverbial as in
I Co 7 38 ) XaXoGV-ri irapa (as in I 4 etc.) T6i/"APeX ( = to x tow v A/?eA,
cp. Jn 5 36 ). Reconciliation, not exclusion, is the note of the via
hiaOrjK-q. The blood of the murdered Abel (n 4 ) called out to
1 rb "A)Se\ (genitive) was actually read by L and is still preferred by Blass.
XII. 24, 25.] A WARNING 219
God in En 2 2 6f - (where the seer has a vision of Abel's spirit
appealing to God) for the extinction of Cain and his descendants.
The Kpeirrov in Jesus here is that, instead of being vindictive
and seeking to exclude the guilty, he draws men into fellowship
with God (see p. xlii). The contrast is therefore not between the
Voice of the blood of Jesus (XaXown) and the Voice of the
decalogue (v. 19 ), but between Jesus and Abel ; the former opens
up the way to the presence of God, the latter sought to shut it
against evil men. The blood of martyrs was assigned an atoning
efficacy in 4 Mac 6 28f - 1 7 21f - ; but Abel's blood is never viewed in
this light, and the attempt to explain this passage as though the
blood of Jesus were superior in redeeming value to that of Abel
as the first martyr (so, e.g., Seeberg), breaks down upon the fact
that the writer never takes Abel's blood as in any sense typical
of Christ's.
The application of vv. 18-24 now follows. Though we have a far
better relationship to God, the faults of the older generation may
still be committed by us, and committed to our undoing (vv. 28 ' 29 ).
28 See {pXtirere as 3 12 ) that you do not refuse to listen to his voice For if
they failed to escape, who refused to listen to their instructor upon earth, much
less shall we, if we discard him who speaks from heaven. ' M Then his voice
shook the earth, but now the assurance is, "once again I will make heaven as
well as earth to quake." ' 21 That phrase (rb 5<* as Eph 4 9 ), "once again," de-
notes (StjXo?, as in 9 8 ) the removal of what is shaken (as no more than created),
to leave only what stands unshaken. ffl Therefore let us render thanks that we
get an unshaken realm ; and in this way let us worship God acceptably — M but
with godly fear and awe, for our God is indeed "a consuming fire."
The divine revelation in the sacrifice of Jesus (AoXowti)
suggests the start of the next appeal and warning. From the
celestial order, just sketched, the divine revelation {ihv XaXourra
. . . thv dir' oupaywy) is made to us ; instead of rejecting it, which
would be tragic, let us hold to it. The argument is : God's
revelation (v. 25 ) implies a lasting relationship to himself (v. 28 ) ;
and although the present order of things in the universe is
doomed to a speedy fall (v. 26 ), this catastrophe will only bring
out the unchanging realm in which God and we stand together
(v. 27 ). The abruptness of the asyndeton in (v. 25 ) pXe'ireTe |at) ktX.
adds to its force. naparnio-TjaOe . . . Trapairno-a|j.eeoi are only a
verbal echo of irapYiTTJowro ktX. in v. 19 ; for the refusal of the
people to hear God except through Moses is not blamed but
praised by God (Dt 5 28 ). The writer, of course, may have
ignored this, and read an ominous significance into the instinctive
terror of the people, as if their refusal meant a radical rejection
of God. But this is unlikely. By irapainicrtfp.ei'oi -xhv xp^fAaTt^orra
he means any obstinate rejection of what Moses laid down for
220 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 25, 26.
them as the will of God. El . . . ouk (as was the fact) £gtyuyoi>
(referring to the doom mentioned in 2 2 3 7f - io 29 ). As in 2 3 (7rw?
tj/acis iKcf)€v$6ix€$a), cK^euyu is used absolutely ; the weaker Z(f>vyov
is read only by S c D K L M * 104, etc. In the following words
there are three possible readings. The original text ran : (a) em
yr]9 irapaiTTjcrCi/Jiej'oi Toy xP^F-aTi^oi'Ta (N* ACDMd boh Cyr.),
«rt yrjs being as often thrown to the front for the sake of
emphasis. But the hyperbaton seemed awkward. Hence (?>)
tov i-rrl yrjs irapaLT-qo-dpievoL x- (N c K L P Chrys. Thdt. etc.)
and (c) TrapaiTrjcrdfJLevot. tov eiri yr)s ^. (69. 256. 263. 436. 462.
467. 1837. 2005 vg) are attempts to make it clear that cm yf]s
goes with Toy xp*]paTi£oeTa, not with mxpai.TTio-cip.cj'oi.. The latter
interpretation misses the point of the contrast, which is not
between a rejection on earth and a rejection in heaven (!), but
between a human oracle of God and the divine Voice air
ovpavdv to us. The allusion in tov xPVI xaT % 0VTa l is t° Moses,
as Chrysostom was the first to see. To refuse to listen to him is
what has been already called Merely vo'/aov Mwi3o-«os (io 28 ). As
the Sinai-revelation is carefully described in 2 2 as 6 oY dyyeXwv
XaXrjOeis Aoyos, so here Moses is 6 xp^H-aTi^uv, or, as Luke puts
it, os e8e$aro Xoyia £wvTa Sovvai (Ac 7 s8 ) ; he was the divine
instructor of the Aaos on earth. It is repeatedly said (Ex 20 22 ,
Dt 4 36 ) that God spoke to the people at Sinai Ik tov oipavov, so
that to take toc xP T U J - aTl '£ 0l ' Ta here as God, would be out of
keeping with em ttjs y^s- The writer uses the verb in a wider
sense than in that of 8 5 and n 7 ; it means "the man who had
divine authority to issue orders," just as in Jer 26 2 (tovs Aoyous
ous <rweTa£d crot auTots \prip.ari(T at), etc. He deliberately writes
rbv xPVf xaT ^ 0VTa °f Moses, keeping tov XaXovvra as usual for
God. Then, he concludes, iroXb (altered, as in v. 9 , to ttoXXw by
D c K L M P * 226, or to 7roo-<j>, as in 9 14 , by 255) p.aXXof (sc. ovk
ii«pev£6/ji.e6a) tj/acis 01 Toy (sc. XPVf J - ar ^ 0VTa ) &>"* oupavwy airooTpe<|>6 •
jacvoi (with accus. as 3 Mac 3 23 d-n-eo-Tpeif/avTO rrjv aTLfirjTOV
TroXireiav, and 2 Ti I 15 a.Treo-Tpdcf>r)<Tav p.e 7ravT€s).
It is surprising that ovpavov (n M 216. 424**. 489. 547. 623. 642. 920.
1518. 1872 Chrys.) has not wider support, though, as g 23, 24 shows, there is
no difference in sense.
In v. 26 ou tj fyuvr) tt)v yt\v eo-(£\eucre totc is another (cp. vv. 13 - 14 )
unintentional rhythm, this time a pentameter. Totc, i.e. at
Sinai. But in the LXX of Ex 19 18 , which the writer used, the
shaking of the hill is altered into the quaking of the people, and
Jg 5 4f - does not refer to the Sinai episode. Probably the writer
inferred an earthquake from the poetical allusions in Ps 114 7
1 Cp. Jos. Ant. iii. 8. 8, Mwi/'<ri7S . . . e'xpij/AaT/^CTO rcpl £>v ("Secro irapk
tov deov.
XII. 26.] THE FINAL CATASTROPHE 221
(ia-aXevdr) rj yrj), Ps 68 8f - 77 18 , when these were associated with
the special theophany at Sinai. Uuv %k eirrJYY e ^ T<u (passive in
middle sense, as Ro 4 21 ) Xeyue, introducing a loose reminiscence
and adaptation Of Hag 2 6 (Iti aTra$ iyw creLaw tov oipavov kou -rqv
yrjv kt\.), where the prediction of a speedy convulsion of nature
and the nations has been altered 1 in the LXX, by the intro-
duction of en, into a mere prediction of some ultimate crisis,
with reference to some preceding aeio-is, i.e. for our writer the
Sinai-revelation. The second and final owis is to be at the
return of Jesus (9 28 ).
The anticipation of such a cosmic collapse entered apocalyptic. Thus the
author of Apoc. Baruch tells his readers, " if you prepare your hearts, so as
to sow in them the fruits of the law, it shall protect you when the Mighty
One is to shake the whole creation" (32 1 ).
In v. 27 the Haggai prediction is made to mean the removal
(fieTdGeatf, stronger sense than even in 7 12 ) twv o-aXeuojieVwr (by
the o-ctcris). There is a divine purpose in the cosmic catastrophe,
however ; it is Iva. fiei^f) to p,r) o-aXeuojicra, i.e. the j3acuXeia
do-dXeuT09 of the Christian order. For dadXeu-ros, compare Philo,
de Vlt. AfosiS, ii. 3, Ta 81 tovtov fxovov /3efiaia, dadXevra, aKpdSavra
. . . fxevtL Trayiws d<j> 77s r)p.ipa<i iypd(j>rj p.ixP l v ^ y Kal Tpos tov
l7retTa TrdvTa o\a/x€veiv eA^is aird alwva winrep dddvara. Zeiw and
o-aXeuoj are cognate terms (cp. e.g. Sir i6 18 - 19 6 oipavos . . . kou yrj
o-a.\tv6rj<TovTai . . . a/xa ra opr) ko.1 tcl 6ep.€kta rrjs yr)<; o-ucrcretovTat).
Here ado-v is changed into o-eia> by D K L P d arm and some
cursives, probably to conform with the form of the promise in
Hag 2 21 (tycb o"ei'o) tov oip. Kal ttjv yrjv). The hint is more
reticent, and therefore more impressive than the elaborate pre-
diction of the Jewish apocalyptist in Apoc. Bar 59 3f - : " but also
the heavens were shaken at that time from their place, and those
who were under the throne of the Mighty One were perturbed,
when He was taking Moses unto Himself. For He showed him
. . . the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern of
which was to be made the sanctuary of the present time " (cp.
He 8 5 ). There is a premonition of the last judgment in En
60 1 , as a convulsion which shook not only heaven, but the nerves
of the myriads of angels.
" There have been two notable transitions of life," says Gregory of
Nazianzus {Oral. v. 25), in the history of the world, i.e. the two covenants,
"which are also called earthquakes on account of their arresting character"
(5ia rb tov irpdynaTos irepifi6riT0v) ; the first from idols to the Law, the second
from the Law to the gospel. We bring the good news of yet a third earth-
quake, the transition from the present order to the future (tt]v ivrevdev itrl to.
iKtiae fieT&o~Ta<riv, to. pri/ctri Kivovfieva, /*t?5£ ffaXevdfj.eva). 2
1 i.e. while Haggai predicts "it will be very soon," the LXX says "once
again."
2 Probably a reference to He 12 26 .
222 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XII. 26-28.
Changes and crises may only serve to render a state or an
individual more stable. Thus Plutarch says of Rome, in the
disturbed days of Numa, KaQdirep ra Ka.Ta.irrjyvvp.eva. to crei'ccrflai
fiaXXov kopd^CTai, pdtvvvo-Qai Sokovctcl Sid t!Jjv klvovvwv ( Vit. Num.
8). But the writer's point in v. 27 is that there is an dcdXeuTos
|3acn\eux l already present, in the fellowship of the new 8iadrjKrj,
and that the result of the cosmic catastrophe will simply be to
leave this unimpaired, to let it stand out in its supreme reality
and permanence. The passage is a counterpart to i 1 "- 12 , where
skies and earth vanish, though they are God's own epya. So
here, the writer puts in, by way of parenthesis, u>s ireiroiTj^fwc.
Kypke took ireTroiTjp.eVwj', "pro Tmrot-qpiivrjv, SC. p-erdOea-iv," com-
paring Mt 5 19 where he regarded iXaxicrrtav as similarly equiva-
lent to iXax^cTrjv. The word would then be a genitive absolute,
connecting with what follows : " all this being done so that," etc.
Even when 7re7rof>y/xeVa«/ is taken in its ordinary sense, it is
sometimes connected with tva kt\. (so, e.g., Bengel and Delitzsch) ;
the aim of creation was to replace the provisional by the per-
manent, the temporal by the eternal. A far-fetched interpreta-
tion. Even the conjecture (Valckenaer) ireirovrjp.evu>v (labouring
with decay) is needless, though ingenious. In vv. 28 - 29 the final
word upon this prospect and its responsibilities is said. Aio (as
in v. 12 ), in view of this outlook (in v. 27 ), Pao-tXeiak dadXeuToe
(metaphorical, as, e.g., Diod. Sic. xii. 29, cnrovSal ao-dXevrai)
irapa\a.fi|3deoi'T€s (cp. 2 Mac io 11 and Epist. Arist. 36, kox 17/z.as
Se 7rapaAa/?ovTcs ttjv /?acnA.eiav kt\., for this common phrase)
IxcofACK \6.p\.v (810 with pres. subjunctive as in 6 1 ). The unique
and sudden reference to the primitive idea of PamXeia (see
Introd., p. xxxiii) may be a reminiscence of the scripture from which
he has just quoted ; the prediction about the shaking of heaven
and earth is followed, in Hag 2 22 , by the further assertion, kox
KOTaorpei/'u) Opovovs /?a<xiAewv, /ecu i^oXeOpevao) 8vvap.1v /JacuAewv
twv eOvuv. Possibly our author regarded the prediction in Dn 7 18
(kou TrapaXrjij/ovTai rr/v (3a<ri\uav ayiot v\picrTOV kcu KaOc$ovcriv
avryv Iws atwos riav a.lu>vu>v) as fulfilled already in the Christian
church, though he does not mean by /3acn\€iav irapa\ap./3dvovTe<;
that Christians enter on their reign.
Why thankfulness (for this common phrase, see Epict. i. 2. 23,
e^w x° L P LV > ° rt l xov < ^ ct '^?7» an d OP. 1381 78 (2nd century) Sid
6v(Ti(ov To) croocravTt d.Tr€&ioop.ev ^dptras) should be the standing
order for them, the writer explains in Si' fjs kt\. ; it is the one
acceptable XaTpeu'eie (9 14 ), or, as he puts it afterwards (i3 15 ), the
real sacrifice of Christians. Ai' rjs Xarpeuupey (subj. cohortative
in relative clause, like (rnji-e in 1 P 5 12 ) cuapeorais (not in LXX ;
1 Cp. Wis 5 15- 16 StKatoi 5£ et's rbv alQiva ^uxxiv . . . X-^fi^ovrai t6 fiaoL-
\uov ttjs euirpeirelas . . . £k x el ph Kvplov, Art tJj 5e£i£ (TKeirdcrei avrofa.
XII. 28.] THE DUTY OF AWE 223
an adverb from the verb in the sense of 1 1 6 - 6 ) tw 0ew. The v.l.
exofiey (K K P Lat syr hU eth etc.) is the usual (see Ro 5 1 )
phonetic blunder, though Xarpevofiev (N M P syr hU arm) would
yield as fair a sense as Xarpevoifiev (ACDL 33. 104 Lat sah
etc.). In fie-rct . . . Sc'ous he puts in a characteristic warning
against presumption. There are three readings, (a) evXa/3eias
#cai Seous, N* A C D 256. 263. 436. 1912 sah boh syr vg arm.
(6) cvXafiuas kcu cu'Sous, S c M P * 6. 104. 326. 1739 lat O ri g-
(c) ai'SoSs kcu cvAa/Setas, K L 462 syr hkl Chrys. Thdt. The acci-
dental doubling of at (from /cat) led to (b), especially as aiSovs
and evXafieia were often bracketed together, and as Seo's was a
rare word (first popularized in Hellenistic Judaism by 2 Macca-
bees). Eu\aj3ei'a here as in 5 7 (cp. n 7 ) of reverent awe. Kcu
yap 6 0€os f\pwv Trup (ccvrafaXicncoi' (v. 29 ). Not "for our God too
is a Trvp av.," for the writer believed that the same God was God
of the old StaB-qKrj and of the new ; besides, this rendering would
require kcu yap Tjpwy 6 0e6s. The phrase is from Dt 4 24 (Moses
at Sinai to the Israelites) otl Kvpios 6 6e6<; <rov irvp KaravaXta-Kov
ia-Tiv, t?6os £77X00x77? (cp. 9 3 ), referring to his intense resentment of
anything like idolatry, which meant a neglect of the hiaOrjKrj.
There is no allusion to fire as purifying ; the author of Wisdom
(16 16 ) describes the Egyptians as 7rupi Ka.Tava.XicrK6fj.evoi, and it is
this punitive aspect of God which is emphasized here, the divine
£77X05 (see p. xxxvi).
This is one of Tertullian's points (adv. Marc. i. 26-27) against the
Marcionite conception of a God who is good-natured and nothing more :
"tacite permissum est, quod sine ultione prohibetur . . . nihil Deo tam
indignum quam non exsequi quod noluit et prohibuit admitti . . . malo
parcere Deum indignius sit quam animadvertere. . . . Plane nee pater tuus
est, in quern competat et amor propter pietatem, et timor propter potestatem ?
nee legitimus dominus. ut diligas propter humanitatem et timeas propter
disciplinam." In Upbs 'Eppalovs there is no softening of the conception, as in
Philo's argument (de Sacrificantibus, 8) that God's requirement is simply
dyairav avrbv ws evepyiryjv , el bk ill), (pofietaQai 70W ws dpxovra Kal Kvptov, Kal
5ia iraawv ttvai tCov els ape'crxeiav bdwv Kal \arpevei.v avrcp jj.t] iraptp-yus dXXd.
6\rj rrj ipvxv TFeirXrjpafJ/ivg yuw/i^s (pt.Xode'ov Kal tu>v e"vTo\u>v avrov Trepi^x eff ^ al
Kal to. 5lKaia ti/j.5.v. In de Decalogo, II, he spiritualizes the fire at Sinai thus :
tov wvpbs t6 /j.£i> tpwrlfeiv rb 5£ Kaleiv nitpvKev (those who obey the divine laws
being inwardly enlightened, those who disobey being inflamed and consumed
by their vices), and closes the treatise (33) by enunciating his favourite doc-
trine that God never punishes directly but only indirectly (here by A£kt?, whose
appropriate task is to punish those who disobey her liege Lord). Indeed he
allegorizes the OT comparison of God to a flame (Quaest. in Exod. 24 17
wcrnep 5e i) (p\b£ iraaav ttjv irapa(i\ride'i<jav b\-qv dvaXlcrKei, ovtws, 6rav iirt.-
(poirrjcrri el\tKpivT]s tov deov ZvvoLa Tjj ^pvxv iravras tous erepodo^ovs ao~e/3elas
\oyi<Tfioi>s Sia<p6elpei, Kadoaiovcra ttjv 6\tjv didvoiav). The closest parallel to
our passage lies in Ps.-Sol 15 s ' - where the author declares that praise to God
is the one security for man. ^aXfxbv Kal atvov per ybrjs iv ev<ppoo-vvg Kapdids,
Kapirbv xtiXe'w' • • • airapxyv x ei ^ 0}v ^ wo KO-pblas baias Kal biKalas, 6 iroiQv
ravra oil ffaXevOrjcreTat els rbv alwva dirb (i.e. inrb) KaKov, (p\b!- irvpbs Kal
224 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XXL 28-XIII. 2.
6pyr) &51kuv ovx 8.\ft erai a-irrov, Srav i^XOrj iirl a/mapTcoKovs diro wpocrilnrov
KVptov.
With this impressive sentence ripos c E|3pcuous really closes.
But the writer appends (see Introd., pp. xxviiif.) a more or less
informal postscript, with some personal messages to the com-
munity. A handful of moral counsels (vv. 1-7 ) is followed by a
longer paragraph (vv. 8 ' 16 ), and the closing personal messages are
interrupted by a farewell benediction (v. 20 ).
1 Let your brotherly love continue. 2 Never forget to be hospitable, for by
hospitality (5i& tclijtt)s, as I2 18 ) some have entertained angels unawares. s Re-
member prisoners as if you were in prison yourselves ; remember those who are
being ill-treated (u 37 ), since you too are in the body.
Neither <j>i\aSe\<|>ia nor <J>i\o£efia is a LXX term, though
the broader sense of the former begins in 4 Mac 13 2326 14 1 .
MeyeTw (cp. 6 10 io 24 - 82f -), though its demands might be severe at
times (cp. Ro 12 10 , 1P1 22 ; Clem. Ro i 2 ; Herm. Mand. 8 10 ) ; the
duty is laid as usual on members of the church, not specially on
officials. In v. 2 a particular expression of this <f>i\a&e\4>ia is called
for. *i\o§ei'£a was practically an article of religion in the ancient
world. The primary reference here in nves is to Abraham and
Sara (Gn i8 lf -), possibly to Manoah (Jg i3 3f -), and even to Tobit
(Tob 12 15 ) ; but the point of the counsel would be caught readily
by readers familiar with the Greek and Roman legends of divine
visitants being entertained unawares by hospitable people, e.g.
Hom. Odyss. xvii. 485 f. (/cat tc 6eol £ctvoicriv ioiKores d\XoSa7ror<ri
I 7ravToIoi reXedovTv;, €7ricrrpa><£u>o-i TrdX^as, cp. Plat. Soph. 216 B) ;
Sil. Ital. vii. 173 f. ("laetus nee senserat hospes | advenisse
deum"), and the story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid, Met.
viii. 626 f.) alluded to in Ac 14 11 . In the Hellenic world the
worship of Zeus Xenios (e.g. Musonius Rufus, xv. a, 6 irepl £<rvovs
aSiKos eis Toi/ £cvlov d/xapravet Ai'a) fortified this kindly custom.
According to Resh Lakish (Sota, 10a), Abraham planted the tree
at Beersheba (Gn 21 s3 ) for the refreshment of wayfarers, and
4>i\o£€via was always honoured in Jewish tradition (e.g. Sabbath,
127. 1, "there are six things, the fruit of which a man eats in
this world and by which his horn is raised in the world to come :
they are, hospitality to strangers, the visiting of the sick," etc.).
But there were pressing local reasons for this kindly virtue in the
primitive church. Christians travelling abroad on business might
be too poor to afford a local inn. Extortionate charges were
frequent; indeed the bad repute which innkeepers enjoyed in
the Greek world (cp. Plato's Laws, 918 D) was due partly to this
and partly also to a "general feeling against taking money for
hospitality " (cp. Jebb's Theophrastus, p. 94). But, in addition,
the moral repute of inns stood low (Theophrastus, Char. 6 5
XHI. 2, 3.] HOSPITALITY 225
Sciyos Se TravSoKtvaai ko.1 iropvof3o<TK?]<Tai kt\.) ; there is significance
in the Jewish tradition preserved by Josephus {Ant. v. i. i)
that Rahab rj iropvi) (n 31 ) kept an inn. For a Christian
to frequent such inns might be to endanger his character,
and this consideration favoured the practice of hospitality on
the part of the local church, apart altogether from the discomforts
of an inn. (" In the better parts of the empire and in the larger
places of resort there were houses corresponding in some
measure to the old coaching inns of the eighteenth century ; in
the East there were the well-known caravanserais ; but for the most
part the ancient hostelries must have afforded but undesirable
quarters. They were neither select nor clean," T. G. Tucker,
Life in the Roman World, p. 20.) Some of these travellers
would be itinerant evangelists (cp. 3 Jn 6-8 ).
According to Philo the three wayfarers seen by Abraham did
not at first appear divine (ot 8c 6eiOTepa<; ovrts ^vo-cws eXiX-qOtaav),
though later on he suspected they were either prophets or angels
when they had promised him the birth of a son in return for his
splendid hospitality (Abrah. 22-23). "In a wise man's house,"
Philo observes, " no one is slow to practise hospitality : women
and men, slaves and freedmen alike, are most eager to do
service to strangers " ; at the same time such hospitality was
only an incident (irdptpyov) and instance (Sety^a o-a^co-raTov)
c/ Abraham's larger virtue, i.e. of his piety. Josephus also
[Ant. i. 11. 2) makes Abraham suppose the three visitors
were human strangers, until at last they revealed themselves
as divine angels (0€acrdyu,evos Tpets dyyeAovs Kal vo/xi<ras clvat
£evovs rjcnraaaTO t' dvaoras Kal Trap air<2 Kara^devra^ Trapc/cdAci
£(vlwv /xeTaAa/Jetv). It was ignorance of the classical idiom (cp.
Herod, i. 44, v7ro8e£d/Aevos tov $civov <povia rov 7rai8os i\av6ave
(36<tk<i)v) in cXaGoy IcvacmvTes, which led to the corruptions of
«(\a0ov in some Latin versions into "latuerunt," "didicerunt,"
and " placuerunt." Note the paronomasia iTrikavQ&vtvQe . . .
ZkaQov, and the emphatic position of dyyeXous. " You never know
whom you may be entertaining," the writer means. "Some
humble visitor may turn out to be for you a very dyycAos $eov "
(cp. Gal 4 U )-
Miy.vf](TK€crB€ (bear in mind, and act on your thought of) twv
Seo-fuwy. Strangers come within sight ; prisoners (v. 3 ) have to
be sought out or — if at a distance — borne in mind. Christian
kindness to the latter, i.e. to fellow-Christians arrested for some
reason or other, took the form either of personally visiting them
to alleviate their sufferings by sympathy and gifts (cp. Mt 25 s6 ,
2 Ti i 16 ), or of subscribing money (to pay their debts or, in the
case of prisoners of war, to purchase their release), or of praying
for them (Col 4 18 and 4 3 ). All this formed a prominent feature
IS
226 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 3.
of early Christian social ethics. The literature is full of tales
about the general practice: e.g. Aristid. Apol. 15; Tertull. ad
Mart. 1 f. and Apol. 39, with the vivid account of Lucian in the
de Morte Peregr. 12, 13. This subject is discussed by Harnack
in the Expansion of Early Christianity (bk. ii. ch. 3, section 5).
Our author urges, " remember the imprisoned " u»s owoeSefieW.
If is is taken in the same sense as the following ws, the meaning
is: (a) "as prisoners yourselves," i.e. in the literal sense, "since
you know what it means to be in prison " ; or (b) " as im-
prisoned," in the metaphorical sense of Diognet. 6, Xpia-riavol
KaTex OVTaL ( * )S & <f>povpa t<T Kocrfxw. A third alternative sense is
suggested by LXX of 1 S 18 1 (fj if/vyr] 'Iwva#av aweSiOi) rrj if/vxf)
Aaut'S), but the absence of a dative after o-wSeSe /xivoi and the
parallel phrase ws iv aijfiaTi rule it out. Probably d>s is no more
than an equivalent for wtrei. Christians are to regard themselves
as one with their imprisoned fellows, in the sense of 1 Co i2 2a
£?T€ 7rao-^€t iv ync\os, (ru/x7rao-;^a iravra to. fii\r). This interpreta-
tion tallies with io 34 above (cp. Neh i 3 - 4 ). It does not, however,
imply that iv aw/icm, in the next clause, means " in the Body (of
which you and your suffering fellows are alike members ") ; for
iv aujxaTi refers to the physical condition of liability to similar
ill-usa^e. See Orig. c. Cels. ii. 23, tw tois iv a-wfiacn (Bouhe"reau
conj. (TuifiaTi) o-vfjifiaLvovToiv, and especially Philo's words describ-
ing some spectators of the cruelties inflicted by a revenue officer
on his victims, as suffering acute pain, <I>s iv tois iripwv awp.aa-iv
avTol KdKovpLevoi (de Spec. Leg. iii. 30). So in de Con/us. Zing. 35,
kcu tuJ o-v/i,(popwv avrjvvTuiv roil/ KaKou^o/ievwv (i.e. by exile, famine,
and plague; cp. He n 37 ) ovk ivBeOfxa-ai ^wpto), o-w/xan.
Seneca {Ep. ix. 8) illustrates the disinterestedness of friendship by
observing that the wise man does not make friends for the reason suggested
by Epicurus, viz., to " have someone who will sit beside him when he is ill,
someone to assist him when he is thrown into chains or in poverty," but
"that he may have someone beside whom, in sickness, he may himself sit,
someone whom he may set free from captivity in the hands of the enemy."
The former kind of friendship he dismisses as inadequate : " a man has made
a friend who is to assist him in the event of bondage (' adversum vincula '),
but such a friend will forsake him as soon as the chains rattle ( ' cum primum
crepuerit catena')." In Ep. Arist. 241, 242, when the king asks what is the
use of kinship, the Jew replies, ikv roty ffv/xflalvoviri vo/xifanev aTvxovin fj.ii>
iXarrouadai (cat KaKOiradQfiev ws aiirol, tpalverai t6 crvyyevis 8<rov Icrxvdv iaTi.
Cicero specially praises generosity to prisoners, and charity in general, as
being serviceable not only to individuals but to the State {de Offic. ii. 18,
"haec benignitas etiam rei publicae est utilis, redimi e servitute captos, locu-
pletari tenuiores").
* Let marriage be held in honour by all, and keep the marriage-bed un-
stained. God will punish the vicious and adulterous.
6 Keep your life free from the love of money ; be content with what you
have, for He (airr<5s) has said,
" Never will I fail you, never will I forsake you."
XIII. 4.] SEXUAL PURITY 227
8 So that we can say confidently,
" The Lord is my helper {fio7\06s, cp. 2 18 4 18 ), / will not be afraid.
What can men do to vie ? "
As vv. 1,2 echo io 24 - 32 - 83 , v. 4 drives home the iropvos of 12 16 ,
and vv. 6 - 6 echo the reminder of io 84 . Evidently (v. 4 ), as among
the Macedonian Christians (1 Th 4 3 " 9 ), <£iAaS€A<pi'a could be
taken for granted more readily than sexual purity. Tipos (sc.
cctto) as in v. 6 , Ro 1 2 9 , the asyndeton being forcible) 6 ydjios iv
■naviv, i.e. primarily by all who are married, as the following
clause explains. There may be an inclusive reference to others
who are warned against lax views of sexual morality, but there is
no clear evidence that the writer means to protest against an
ascetic disparagement of marriage. Koitt) is, like the classical
A.cyos, a euphemistic term for sexual intercourse, here between
the married ; dfuai'Tos is used of incest, specially in Test. Reub.
i. 6, ip.ia.va koLtvjv tov 7rarpds fxov : Plutarch, de Fluviis, 1 8, /xr]
OiXoiV ii.1a.1vav ttjv kolttjv tov yevviycravTos, etc ; but here in a
general sense, as, e.g., in Wisdom :
fiaKapia r; areipa r) d/xtavros,
77ns ovk eyvco kolttjv iv TrapaTTTwfxaTi,
!£ei KapTrbv iv iirio-KOTrfi ij/v^wv (3 13 ),
and oi5t€ fiiovs ovre ydp.ov<; Ka.6a.povs In cpvXaaaovatv,
CTcpos 8' trepov r) Ao^wv avaipel rj voOevwv 68vva (14 24 ).
In Trdp^ous Y"P KC " jaoixou's ktA., the writer distinguishes between
/aoiyoi, i.e. married persons who have illicit relations with other
married persons, and iropvoi of the sexually vicious in general,
i.e. married persons guilty of incest or sodomy as well as of
fornication. In the former case the main reference is to the
breach of another person's marriage ; in the latter, the pre-
dominating idea is treachery to one's own marriage vows. The
possibility of nopvtia in marriage is admitted in Tob 8 7 (oi Sid
7ropv€tav cyd) Aa/iySdva) ttjv d8eA<p7;j' fxov Tavrrjv), i.e. of mere
sexual gratification 1 as distinct from the desire and duty of
having children, which Jewish and strict Greek ethics held to be
the paramount aim of marriage (along with mutual fellowship) ;
but this is only one form of iropveia. In the threat npiveZ (as in
io 30 ) 6 0€os, the emphasis is on 6 6e6<s. "Longe plurima pars
scortatorum et adulterorum est sine dubio, quae effugit notitiam
iudicum mortalium . . . magna pars, etiamsi innotescat, tamen
poenam civilem et disciplinam ecclesiasticam vel effugit vel
leuissime persentiscit " (Bengel).
This is another social duty (cp. Philo, de Decalogo, 24). In view of the
Epicurean rejection of marriage (e.g. Epict. iii. 7. 19), which is finely
1 tit] iv ir&dei iiudv/xlas, as Paul would say (1 Th 4 6 ).
228 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 4, 5.
answered by Antipater of Tarsus (Stob. Florileg. lxvii. 25 : 6 ei/yevrjs koX
ettyuxof vioi . . . deupSiv 5i6ri r^Aeioj oIkos «oi /S£os <w/c dXXws 5vvo.tcu
yevtcrdcu, 1) /xerct. 7wai/cds /cai t4kvuv kt\.), as well as of current ascetic
tendencies (e.g., I Ti 4 3 ), there may have been a need of vindicating marriage,
but the words here simply maintain the duty of keeping marriage vows
unbroken. The writer is urging chastity, not the right and duty of any
Christian to marry. Prejudices born of the later passion for celibacy led to
the suppression of the inconvenient iv iraai (om. 38. 460. 623. 1836. 1912*
Didymus, Cyril Jerus., Eus., Athan., Epiphanius, Thdt.). The sense is
hardly affected, whether ydp (kAD* M P lat sah boh) or 64 (CD C *6 syr
arm eth Clem., Eus., Didymus, Chrys.) is read, although the latter would
give better support to the interpretation of the previous clause as an anti-
ascetic maxim.
A warning against greed of gain (vv. 5 - 6 ) follows the warning
against sexual impurity. There may be a link of thought between
them. For the collocation of sensuality and the love of money,
see Epict. iii. 7. 2 1, o-ol kolXtjv ywaua rfxiLvecrOai tir/Setu'av 77 rrpf
o~y\v, KaXov irdL&a. LiTiScVa, kolXov apyvpw/xa [LT)8ei', xpucrw/xa \x.r)Qiv :
Test. Jud. 18, tpvXd^acrde diro tt]s Tropvcias nal tt/s (piAapyupias . . .
on ravra . . . ovk acpui dv&pa iXerjarai tov irX-qaiov avrow, and
Philo's (de Post. Caini, 34) remark, that all the worst quarrels,
public and private, are due to greedy craving for 17 (.vp.op<bia.%
ywaiKos 77 \pr\p.a.riMv ktX. In de Abrah. 26, he attributes the
sensuality of Sodom to its material prosperity. Lucian notes the
same connexion in Nigrin. 16 (o-weio-e'px €T at y<*p p-oiyzia. ko.1
(ptXapyvpia ktX., the love of money having been already set as
the source of such vices). In 1 Co 5 10f - Paul brackets 01 Tro'pvoi
with o£ irXeoveKTai, and irXeov£$ia (cp. 1 Th 4 6 ) as selfishness
covers adultery as well as grasping covetousness. But the
deeper tie between the two sins is that the love of luxury and
the desire for wealth open up opportunities of sensual indulgence.
In injuries to other people, Cicero observes (de Offic. i. 7. 24),
" latissime patet avaritia." When Longinus describes the deterior-
ating effects of this passion or vice in character (de Sublim. 44),
he begins by distinguishing it from mere love of pleasure ;
<piXapyvpia piv vocrrjp,a puKpoiroiov, cpiXr]$ovLa 8' ay zwlcrTaTOV.
Then he proceeds to analyse the working of <piXapyvp(.a in life,
its issue in u/3pis, Trapavotu'a, and dvaiaxwria.
'A^iXdpyupos (the rebel Appianus tells Marcus Aurelius, in
OP. xxxiii. 10, 11, that his father to p.lv v-pwrov rjv <p<Aocrocpos, to
Sevrepov d<piAdpyupos, to rpirov (piXdyaOos) 6 Tpoiros (in sense of
"mores," as often, e.g., M. Aurelius, i. 16, /ecu ttSs 6 toiovto?
TpoVos). 'ApKoup^oi is the plur. ptc. after a noun (as in 2 Co i 7 ,
Ro 12 9 ), and with toIs rrapouaiv reproduces a common Grtek
phrase for contentment, e.g. Teles, vii. 7, dAA' r^eis ov 8wap.e8a
apKilaBai Tots 7rapot'crti', orav Kal rpvcpfj iroXv SiSwtt.ei', and xxvili. 3 1,
Kal /at) €\(ov °vk €irnro6rj<rei<> dXXd fiiwarr) dpKOvp.evo<; Tots Trapoucrii/.
The feature here is the religious motive adduced in auros ya.p
XIII. 5, 6.] CONFIDENCE IN GOD 229
eiprjKCk' (of God as usual, e.g., i 13 ), a phrase which (cp. Ac 20 35
atTos e?7T€v) recalls the Pythagorean avxos e<f>a (" thus said the
Master "). The quotation 00 prj ere av£> ou8' ou prj ere eyKaTaXiirw is
a popular paraphrase of Jos 1 5 or Gn 28 15 (cp. Dt 31 s , 1 Ch 28 20 )
which the writer owes to Philo (de Con/us. Ling. 32), who quotes
it exactly in this form as a Aoyiov tov iXem Oeov yuecrrov rjp.epOTr}To<;,
but simply as a promise that God will never leave the human
soul to its own unrestrained passions. The combination of the
aor. subj. with the first ou yu.77 and the reduplication of the
negative (for ouS' ov p.rj, cp. Mt 24 21 ) amount to a strong
asseveration. Note that the writer does not appeal, as Josephus
does, to the merits of the fathers (Antiq. xi. 5. 7, tov piev Oeov
Icrre p.vrjpy rlav traTepoiv 'Afipapov kcu IcraKou /ecu 'laxwfiov
■jrapa/jLevovTa kcu 81a ttjs eKeivwv 8iKaiocrvvr)s ovk eyKaraXeiTrovra ttjv
v-n-ep rjp.wv irpovoiav) in assuring his readers that they will not be
left forlorn by God.
'EytcaTaXelTTO) (so all the uncials except D) may be simply an ortho-
graphical variant of the true reading iyKaraXliru (aorist subj.). In Dt 3 1 6
the A text runs ov /j.f) tre av-fj ov5' ov <re iyKCLTakelwri, in Jos I 6 ovk ("yKaTaXelwu)
o~e ovde inrepo\f> o/jlo.1 ere, and in Gn 28 15 ov /xrj ere iyKaTaXeiwu. The promise
originally was of a martial character. But, as Keble puts it [Christian Year,
"The Accession ") :
"Not upon kings or priests alone
the power of that dear word is spent ;
it chants to all in softest tone
the lowly lesson of content."
"Acre (v. 6 ) GappoCtTas (on the evidence for this form, which
Plutarch prefers to the Ionic variant Oapcrelv, cp. Cronert's
Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, 133 2 ) %as fom. M, accidentally)
\eyeiv. What God says to us moves us to say something to
ourselves. This quotation from Ps 118 6 is exact, except that
the writer, for the sake of terseness, omits the kcu ( = so) before
ou 4>oPir]8T)crou.cu, which is reinserted by n c A D K L M syr hkl etc.
For the phrase OappovvTas Xiyeiv, see Pr i 21 (Wisdom) e7ri 8e
TrvXais 7roA€tos Oappovaa Xeyec : and for |3ot]06s and Oappelv in con-
junction, see Xen. Cyr. V. i. 25, 26, eVciSr) 8' Ik Uepawv ftorjOos
fjp.lv wpprj8r]<s . . . vvv 8' av ovtojs e^op-ev cos crvv p.ev crol oucos /ecu
cv rfj iro\ep.ia cWes 6appov/xev. Epictetus tells a man who is
tempted (ii. 18. 29), tov deov p.ep.vrjo-0, eKelvov i-rrtKaXov fiorjOov kcu
Trapao-raT-qv. This is the idea of the psalm-quotation here.
Courage is described in Galen (de H. et Plat. deer. vii. 2) as the
knowledge £>v xpv Oappelv ?) p.r] Oappelv, a genuinely Stoic defini-
tion; and Alkibiades tells, in the Symposium (221 A), how he
came upon Sokrates and Laches retreating during the Athenian
defeat at Delium Kal I8wv eiOvs rrapaKeXevopat re avrolv Oappelv,
/cat eAeyov on ovk airoXeixj/oj airoi. In the touching prayer pre-
served in the Acta Pauli (xlii.), Thekla cries, 6 0e6<; p.ov Kal tov
230 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 6, 7.
o'lkov tovtov, Xpicrre 'Irjo-ov 6 mos tov 8tov, 6 ifjLoi ftorjOos iv <pv\aicfj,
fiorjObs i-TTi rjy€fj.6voiV, (iorjObs iv irvpl, fSorjOos iv drjpLois.
According to Pliny (Epp. ix. 30 : " primum est autem suo esse contentum,
deinde, quos praecipue scias indigere sustentantem fouentemque orbe quodam
societatis ambire") a man's first duty is to be content with what he has ; his
second, to go round and help all in his circle who are most in need.
Epictetus quotes a saying of Musonius Rufus : oil 6£\eis iieXerav dpKeiadat rip
de5ofjL^vij) ; (i. I. 27); but this refers to life in general, not to money or property
in particular. The argument of our author is that instead of clinging to their
possessions and setting their hearts on goods (10 34 ), which might still be
taken from them by rapacious pagans, they must realize that having God
they have enough. He will never allow them to be utterly stripped of the
necessaries of life. Instead of trying to refund themselves for what they had
lost, let them be content with what is left to them and rely on God to
preserve their modest all ; he will neither drop nor desert them.
Hitherto the community has been mainly (see on i2 14t )
addressed as a whole. Now the writer reminds them of the
example of their founders, dead and gone, adding this to the
previous list of memories (i2 lf -).
1 Remember your leaders, the men who spoke the word of God to you ; look
back upon the close of their career, and copy their faith.
MnfjjAoyeueTe twv ^youfiei'ojy ufAwe oiticcs (since they were the
men who) e\<i\r|o-ai> ufj.lv toc \6yov tou GeoG. The special function
of these primitive apostles and prophets was to preach the
gospel (cp. 1 Co i 17 ) with the supernatural powers of the Spirit.
Then the writer adds a further title to remembrance, their con-
sistent and heroic life ; they had sealed their testimony with
their (wv ktA.) blood. 'H.yov/j.evo<;, like apx<ov, was a substantival
formation which had a wide range of meaning ; here it is
equivalent to "president" or "leader" (cp. Epp. Apollon. ii. 69,
dvSpas tous rjyov/xevovs iiiwv = your leading citizens, or prominent
men, and Ac 15 22 ). 1 It was they who had founded the church
by their authoritative preaching; iXdXrja-av vij.lv tov Adyov tov
8eov recalls the allusion to the o-toTrjpia which vtto t£>v aKovcrdvTtov
(i.e. Jesus) «? r)p.a<; (fiefiaitodr] (2 s ). The phrase denotes, in
primitive Christianity (e.g. Did. 4 1 where the church-member is
bidden remember with honour tov \cl\ovvtos 0-01 tov Adyov tov
6cov), the central function of the apostolic ministry as the
declaration and interpretation of the divine Adyos. These men
had died for their faith ; €Kf3ao-is here, as in Wis 2 17 (to. iv iKt3ao-ei
avTov), is, like efoSos, a metaphor for death as the close of life,
evidently a death remarkable for its witness to faith. They had
laid down their lives as martyrs. This proves that the allusion
in 12 4 does not exclude some martyrdoms in the past history of
the community, unless the reference here is supposed to mean
1 In Ep. Arist. 310, of the headmen of the Jewish community at
Alexandria.
XIII. 7. J GOOD EXAMPLES 23 1
no more than that they died as they had lived Kara it'kttiv (ii 13 ),
without giving up their faith.
In Egypt, during the Roman period, "a liturgical college of irpeafivTfpoi
or rryovntvot was at the head of each temple" (GCP. i. 127), the latter term
being probably taken from its military sense of "officers" {e.g. rryeyuiWs tQiv
£{w T&£fU)l>).
'AkaOewpoCtacs is "scanning closely, looking back (dva-)
on " ; and dkaorpo^rj is used in this sense even prior to Polybius ;
e.g. Magn. 46 35 - 44 (iii B.C.) and Magn. 165 5 (i a.d.) hib. ttjv tov
r)0ov<; Koo-fxiov aiacrr pocp-qv. As for pip.el<70e, the verb never occurs
in the LXX except as a v. 1. (B*) for ipio-rjo-as in Ps 31 6 , and
there in a bad sense. The good sense begins in Wis 4*
(■jrapovcrdv re fUfiovvTcn avrrjv), so far as Hellenistic Judaism goes,
and in 4 Mac g 23 (pipyo-acrOe /xe) 13 9 (p.ip.rjawpeda rovs rpeis toiis
(ttl rrjs Svpta? vcavtV/covs) it is used of imitating a personal
example, as here. In the de Congressu Erudit. 13, Philo argues
that the learner listens to what his teacher says, whereas a man
who acquires true wisdom by practice and meditation (6 ok
a<TKrj<T£i to KaXbv dAAd p.r] 8t8ao"«aA.ta ktw/xcvos) attends ov rots
Acyo^ue'vois dAAd tois Aeyouct, fii/xovfievos tov CKeivwv fiiov iv Tat?
Kara /xc'pos dv€7riA.7pTois irpa^ta-i. He is referring to living
examples of goodness, but, as in de Vita Mos. i. 28, he points out
that Moses made his personal character a 7rapd8eiy/i.a rots
IdiXovcn fjufxclardai. This stimulus of heroic memories belonging
to one's own group is noted by Quintilian (Instit. Orat. xii. 2. 31)
as essential to the true orator: "quae sunt antiquitus dicta ac
facta praeclare et nosse et animo semper agitare conveniet.
Quae profecto nusquam plura maioraque quam in nostrae
civitatis monumentis reperientur. . . . Quantum enim Graeci
praeceptis valent, tantum Romani, quod est maius, exemplis."
Marcus Aurelius recollects the same counsel : eV tois tcjv 'Etti-
Kovpuwv ypd.pp.aa-i 7rapdyyeXua ckcito o-vve^ws VTropup-vrjo-KCO-dai twv
vaXaiwv Ttvos twv aptrrj xpr)o~ap.evwv (xi. 26).
Human leaders may pass away, but Jesus Christ, the supreme
object and subject of their faithful preaching, remains, and
remains the same ; no novel additions to his truth are required,
least of all innovations which mix up his spiritual religion with
what is sensuous and material.
8 Jesus Christ is always the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever. ■ Never
let yourselves be carried away wtth a variety of novel doctrines ; lor the right
thing is to have one's heart strengthened by grace, not by the eating of food —
that has never been any use to those who have had recourse to it. 10 Our
(txopev as 4 15 ) altar is one of which the worshippers have no right to eat.
11 For the bodies of the animals whose "blood ts taken into the holy Place" by
the highpriest as a "sin-offering, are burned outside the camp" ; 12 and so
Jesus also suffered outside the gate, in order to sanctify the people (cp. I0 2f -) by
his own blood (9 12 ). 13 Let us go to him " outside the camp" then, bearing
232 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 8, 9.
his obloquy M {for we have no lasting city here below, we seek the City to
come). 15 And by him "let us" constantly "offer praise to God" as our
"sacrifice," that is, " the fruit of lips" that celebrate his Name. 18 Do not
forget (/x^i iiriKavddveade, as in v. 2 ) beneficence and charity either; these are
the kind of sacrifices that are acceptable to God.
V. 8 connects with what precedes and introduces what follows.
"Ex^es 1 refers to his life on earth (2 3 5 7 ) and includes the service
of the original ^you/xevoi; it does not necessarily imply a long
retrospect. Yr\y.s.pw as in 3 15 , and 6 auros as in i 12 . The finality
of the revelation in Jesus, sounded at the opening of the homily
(i lf *)» resounds again here. He is never to be superseded; he
never needs to be supplemented. Hence (v. 9 ) the warning
against some new theology about the media of forgiveness and
fellowship, which, it is implied, infringes the all-sufficient efficacy
of Jesus Christ. Aioaxcus (6 2 ) ttoikiXcus (2* in good sense) ical
£eVais jx^i irapa<|>epe<r6e. YlapacfteptcrOai (cp. Jude 12 ) is never used in
this metaphorical sense (swayed, swerved) in the LXX, where it
is always literal, and the best illustration of £eV<u? in the sense of
" foreign to " (the apostolic faith) is furnished by the author of
the epistle to Diognetus (n 1 ), who protests, oi £eVa 6/xi\ai . . .
dAAa 6ltto(Tt6X<i}V yevo/Mtvos p.a6t]rrjs yiVo/xai SiSacrxaAos iOvwv. Such
notions he curtly pronounces useless, iv ots ouk w^eXTJOTjo-aK oi
irepnraTourres, where iv ots goes with TrtpnraTovvTVi ; they have
never been of any use in mediating fellowship with God for
those who have had recourse to them. It is exactly the tone of
Jesus in Mk 7 18 .
napa<pipe<s0€ was altered (under the influence of Eph 4 14 ) into Trepi<p£pe<r6e
(KL*2, 5. 88. 330. 378. 440. 491. 547. 642. 919. 920. 1867. 1872. 1908.
arm sah). IIepnraT-ii<Ta.vTes (n c C D c K L M P syr hkl arm Orig. Chrys. etc.)
and irepiirarovvTis (k* A D* 191 2 lat) are variants which are substantially the
same in meaning, trepiirareh iv being used in its common sense = living in the
sphere of (Eph 2 10 etc. ), having recourse to.
The positive position is affirmed in koKov kt\. (*aA.6V, as in
1 Co 7 1 , Ro 14 21 etc.). " KaXds . . . denotes that kind of good-
ness which is at once seen to be good" (Hort on 1 P 2 12 ), i.e.
by those who have a right instinct. The really right and good
course is x^P lTl PePaioucrGai TTjy KapSiae, i.e. either to have one's
heart strengthened, or to be strengthened in heart (KapSiav, accus.
of reference). Bread sustains our physical life (apros KapSiav
avOpoiirov <m]pl£et, Ps 104 15 ), but *capSta here means more than
vitality ; it is the inner life of the human soul, which God's x^P^
alone can sustain, and God's X'V 1 * m Jesus Christ is everything
(2 9 etc.). But what does this contrast mean ? The explanation
is suggested in the next passage (vv. 10 - 16 ), which flows out of
1 The forms vary ; but this, the Attic spelling, has the best repute upon
the whole (see W. G. Rutherford's New Phrynichus, pp. 370 f. ), and strong
support here in * A C* D* M.
XIII. 9.] FOOD AND FAITH 233
what has just been said. The various novel doctrines were
connected in some way with PpwjxaTa. So much is clear. The
difficulty is to infer what the fipwaara were. There is a touch of
scorn for such a motley, unheard of, set of StSu^ai. The writer
does not trouble to characterize them, but his words imply that
they were many-sided, and that their main characteristic was a
preoccupation with fipw/xaTa. There is no reference to the
ancient regulations of the Hebrew ritual mentioned in 9 10 ; this
would only be tenable on the hypothesis, for which there is no
evidence, that the readers were Jewish Christians apt to be
fascinated by the ritual of their ancestral faith, and, in any case,
such notions could not naturally be described as iroiKikai Kal
£ci/ai. We must look in other directions for the meaning of this
enigmatic reference, (a) The new SiSa^d' may have included
ascetic regulations about diet as aids to the higher life, like the
evTa.Xp.aTa Kal SiSaa-KaXiai twv avdpwirwv which disturbed the
Christians at Colosse. Partly owing to Gnostic syncretism,
prohibitions of certain foods (djr€x«o"#cu /3pwp.d.Twv, 1 Ti 4 3 ) were
becoming common in some circles, in the supposed interests of
spiritual religion. " We may assume," says Pfleiderer, one of
the representatives of this view (pp. 278 f.), "a similar Gnostic
spiritualism, which placed the historical Saviour in an inferior
position as compared with angels or spiritual powers who do not
take upon them flesh and blood, and whose service consists in
mystical purifications and ascetic abstinences." (6) They may
also have included such religious sacraments as were popularized
in some of the mystery-cults, where worshippers ate the flesh of
a sacrificial victim or consecrated elements which represented the
deity. Participation in these festivals was not unknown among
some ultra-liberal Christians of the age. It is denounced by
Paul in 1 Co 10, and may underlie what the writer has already
said in io 25 . Why our author did not speak outright of ctSwAo^vra,
we cannot tell ; but some such reference is more suitable to the
context than (a), since it is sacrificial meals which are in question.
He is primarily drawing a contrast between the various cult-feasts
of paganism, which the readers feel they might indulge in, not
only with immunity, but even with spiritual profit, and the
Christian religion, which dispensed with any such participation.
(c) Is there also a reference to the Lord's supper, or to the
realistic sense in which it was being interpreted, as though
participation in it implied an actual eating of the sacrificial body
of the Lord ? This reference is urged by some critics, especially
by F. Spitta {Zur Geschichte u. Litteratur des Urchristentums,
i. pp. 325 f.) and O. Holtzmann (in Zeitschrift fur die neutest
Wissenschaft, x. pp. 251-260). Spitta goes wrong by misinterpret-
ing v. 10 as though the awfia of Christ implied a sacrificial meal
234 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 9, 10.
from which Jewish priests were excluded. Holtzmann rightly
sees that the contrast between x<*P ts ar >d /3pw/xara implies, for
the latter, the only fipw/xa possible for Christians, viz. the Lord's
body as a food. What the writer protests against is the rising
conception of the Lord's supper as a <£ayeiv to trw/jta tou X/>«rrov.
On the day of Atonement in the OT ritual, to which he refers,
there was no participation in the flesh of the sacrificial victim ;
there could not be, in the nature of the case (v. 11 ). So, he
argues, the o-w/xa XpioroC of our sacrifice cannot be literally eaten,
as these neo-sacramentarians allege ; any such notion is, to him,
a relapse upon the sensuous, which as a spiritual idealist he
despises as "a vain thing, fondly invented." A true insight into
the significance of Jesus, such as he has been trying to bring out
in what he has written, such as their earlier leaders themselves
had conveyed in their own way, would reveal the superfluousness
and irrelevance of these SiSa^au As the writer is alluding to
what is familiar, he does not enter into details, so that we have
to guess at his references. But the trend of thought in vv. 10f - is
plain. In real Christian worship there is no sacrificial meal ;
the Christian sacrifice is not one of which the worshippers
partake by eating. This is the point of v. 10 . The writer
characteristically illustrates it from the OT ritual of atonement-
day, by showing how the very death of Jesus outside the city of
Jerusalem fulfilled the proviso in that ritual (vv. 11 - 12 ) that the
sacrifice must not be eaten. Then he finds in this fact about
the death of Jesus a further illustration of the need for unworldli-
ness (vv. 13 - 14 ). Finally, in reply to the question, "Then have
Christians no sacrifices to offer at all?" he mentions the two
standing sacrifices of thanksgiving and charity (vv. 15 - 16 ), both
owing their efficacy to Christ. Inwardness is the dominating
thought of the entire paragraph. God's grace in Jesus Christ
works upon the soul ; no external medium like food is required
to bring us into fellowship with him ; it is vain to imagine that
by eating anything one can enjoy communion with God. Our
Lord stands wholly outside the material world of sense, outside
things touched and tasted ; in relationship to him and him
alone, we can worship God. The writer has a mystical or
idealistic bent, to which the sacramental idea is foreign. He
never alludes to the eucharist ; the one sacrament he notices is
baptism. A ritual meal as the means of strengthening communion
with God through Christ does not appeal to him in the slightest
degree. It is not thus that God's x<*pis 1S experienced.
The clue to v. 10 lies in the obvious fact that the 0u<ria<m ! )pio»'
and the aKi\vr) belong to the same figurative order. In our
spiritual or heavenly o-Kyvrj, the real triapnrj of the soul, there is
indeed a GuoriaCTTrjpiok i% ou (partitive ; cp. to, «is tov itpov IcrQiov-
XIII. 10-12.] UNWORLDLINESS 235
criv, 1 Co 9 13 ) 4)oy€iK (emphatic by position) ouk Ixouo-iy l£owiav x
(1 Co g 4 ) 01 ttj oxtivt} XaTpeuorres (Xarpeveiv with dative as in 8 5 ).
It makes no difference to the sense whether ol . . . AarpeuovTts
means worshippers (g 9 io 2 ) or priests (8 5 ), and the writer does not
allegorize Ova-taa-nqpiov as Philo does (e.g. in de Leg. Aileg. i. 15, rrj<;
Ka6apa<; Kal ap.ta.vTov <£rcrea)s ttJs a.va(p€povo~r)<; Ta a/xw/ta tu> 0ew,
avrr) 8c ecrn to OvcriaaTypiov). His point is simply this, that the
Christian sacrifice, on which all our relationship to God depends,
is not one that involves or allows any connexion with a meal. To
prove how impossible such a notion is, he (v. 11 ) cites the ritual
regulation in Lv 16 27 for the disposal of the carcases of the two
animals sacrificed irepl ttjs duapTias (we to alp.a cio-^ve'^r; c^iXao - -
ao~6ai eV tu> dyia> iioiaovo-Lv avTa e£a) ttjs Trapep.(3o\rj<; Kal KaraKavaov-
aw clvto. h'irvpC). For a moment the writer recalls his main argument
in chs. 7-10; in v. 10 Christ is regarded as the victim or sacrifice
(cp. 7r/)oo-€V€x^€is in 9 28 ), but here the necessities of the case
involve the activity of the Victim. Aid Kal 'lT)<rous ktX. (v. 12 ).
The parallel breaks down at one point, of course ; his body was
not burned up. 2 But the real comparison lies in ?|u ttjs ttuXtjs
{sc. T77S Trap€fxfioX J q<;, as Ex 32 26 - 27 ). The Peshitto and 436 make
the reference explicit by reading ttoAcws, which seems to have
been known to Tertullian {adv.Jud. 14, "extra civitatem "). The
fact that Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem influenced the
synoptic transcripts of the parable in Mk i2 8 = Mt 2i 39 = Lk 20 15 .
Mark's version, aireKTeivav avrov /ecu i$e/3aXov avrbv Z$<d tov afnreX-
wvos, was altered into (c^e'/3aAov) ck/SoAovtcs avrbv !£a) tou ap.ire\ujvo<;
(Kal) aireKTeivav. Crucifixion, like other capital punishments, in
the ancient world was inflicted outside a city. To the writer this
fact seems intensely significant, rich in symbolism. So much so
that his mind hurries on to use it, no longer as a mere confirma-
tion of the negative in v. 10 , but as a positive, fresh call to unworldli-
ness. All such sensuous ideas as those implied in sacrificial
meals mix up our religion with the very world from which we
ought, after Jesus, to be withdrawing. We meet Jesus outside
all this, not inside it. In highly figurative language (v. 13 ), he
therefore makes a broad appeal for an unworldly religious fellow-
ship, such as is alone in keeping with the x^pis of God in Jesus
our Lord.
Toivuv (beginning a sentence as in Lk 20 28 toi'vw cnroSoTe ktA.,
instead of coming second in its classical position), let us join
Jesus e|o) tt)s Tmpep.po\fjs, for he is living. The thought of the
1 The omission of 0-ovola.v by D* M and the Old Latin does not affect the
sense ; £x e "' then has the same meaning as in 6 13 .
2 The blood, not the body, of the victim mattered in the atonement ritual.
Hence, in our writer's scheme of thought, as Peake observes, " while he fully
recognises the fact of the Resurrection of Christ, he can assign it no place in
his argument or attach to it any theological significance."
236 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 13-15.
metaphor is that of Paul's admonition fir] o-vvo-xniiaTi^ade t<2
aluvi tovtu) (Ro I2 2 ), and the words tw dyeiSio-p.dy ciutoG (fjepon-es
recall the warnings against false shame (n 26 12 2 ), just as the
following (v. 14 ) reason, ou yap e X ^ v "Be (in the present outward
order of things) fievouarav x -nokiv dXXa t)\v piXXouaaf cm^nToGu.ei'
recalls the ideas of n 10 - 14 - 16 . The appeal echoes that of 4"
O"irov8do-wp.ev ovv do-e\6elv €is €Keivrjv TTjv KaTdiravo-iv. It is through
the experiences of an unsettled and insulted life that Christians
must pass, if they are to be loyal to their Lord. That is, the
writer interprets l^w rfjs irapep.f3o\f}<; figuratively (" Egrediamur
et nos a commercio mundi huius," Erasmus). Philo had already
done so (cp. specially quod. det. pot. 44), in a mystical sense :
fj.CLKpav SiotKt^ci tov 0-oyp.a.TiKov o-Tpa.Toir&ov, /xdvws av OVT109 iXiri(ra<i
ikctt/s koX 6epaiT€VTr]<; la-ta-dai TtAeio? deov. Similarly in de Ebrietate,
25, commenting on Ex 33 7 , he explains that by ivnS aTparoireBm
( = iv Tjj TrapcfiftoXfj) Moses meant allegorically iv t<3 /acto. o-ayurros
y8tu), the material interests of the worldly life which must be for-
saken if the soul is to enjoy the inward vision of God. Such is
the renunciation which the writer here has in view. It is the
thought in 2 Clem. 5 1 (odcv, d8eX.<pot, KaraXeiij/avTes rrjv irapoiKiav
tov KO(rp.ov tovtov 7rotrjo-wp.ev to OeXrjpxL tov /caXeVaj/Tos i^a?, k ai
p.r) <pof3rj6wp.ev e£eA0£iv i< tov Koo-p.ov tovtov) and 6 5 (ov 8vvd-
p.e6a twv 8vo <f>iX.oi ttvaC Bel 8c 17/i.as tovto) a7roTa£a/xeVous CKetVoj
Xpao-8ai). Only, our author weaves in the characteristic idea
of the shame which has to be endured in such an unworldly
renunciation.
The next exhortation in v. 15 (ava^pufiev) catches up i£(px<l>-
p.cda, as hi auTou carries on 71-pos airov. For once applying sacri-
ficial language to the Christian life, he reminds his readers again
of the sacrifice of thanksgiving. The phrase KapTroi' xetXeW ex-
plains (tout itmv) the sense in which 0uo-ia aircrews is to be
taken ; it is from the LXX mistranslation (Kap-n-ov x«AeW) of
Hos 14 3 where the true text has Dns (bullocks) instead of "ns
(fruit). In op.oXoyout'Toji' tw 6i.'6jjLaTi auTou, o^toXoyciv is used in
the sense of e£o/AoAoyeio-0ai by an unusual 2 turn of expression.
The ovop.a means, as usual, the revealed personality. Probably
there is an unconscious recollection of Ps 54 s (i$op.okoyrjo-op.ai t<3
oVo'/xaTi o-ov) ; Ovaia aii/co-cws 3 is also from the psalter (e.g.
5<d 14 - 23 ). 'Ava<f>eptiv elsewhere in the NT is only used of spiritual
sacrifices in the parallel passage 1 P 2 5 dvevcyKcu 7rvev/xari/ca.s
Ova-Las eu7rpoo-SeKTous 6etS Sid 'I^o-ov Xptcrrov. We have no sacri-
1 In the sense of Aeneas (Verg. Aen. iii. 85, 86, "da moenia fessis | et genus
et mansuram urbem "). Note the assonance nlvovaav . . . niWovvav.
2 But 6fj.o\oyut> Tivt occurs in 3 Es 4 60 5 s8 (A).
8 In the LXX 4£o/j.o\6yr]<ris is generally preferred to aXvcais as an equiva-
lent for .run.
XIII. 15, 16.] CHRISTIAN SACRIFICES 237
ficial meals, the writer implies ; we do not need them. Nor have
we any sacrifices — except spiritual ones. (The ovv after St* avrov,
which K c A C D c M vg syr hkl boh arm eth Orig. Chrys. etc. re-
tain, is omitted by x* D* P * vt syr v &; but N* D* om. ovv also
1 Co 6 7 , as D in Ro 7 25 ). The thought of 12 28 is thus expanded,
with the additional touch that thankfulness to God is inspired
by our experience of Jesus (&Y avrov, as Col 3 17 evxapio-rovvTc; t<3
6ei2 warpl 81' avrov) ; the phrase is a counterpart of 81a tou
dpxiepe'ws in v. 11 . This thank-offering is to be made 81a 7ravTos
(sc. xpovov), instead of at stated times, for, whatever befalls us, we
owe God thanks and praise (cp. 1 Th 5 16 ). The Mishna (cp.
Berachoth 5 4 ) declares that he must be silenced who only calls
upon God's name with thankfulness in the enjoyment of good
(Berachoth 5 s inix ppritro nnSo Dnio lOBf-orato ^V • • • "ipiKn).
The religious idea of thanksgiving was prominent in several quarters.
According to Fronto (Loeb ed. i. p. 22) thank-offerings were more acceptable
to the gods than sin-offerings, as being more disinterested : fiavrecov 8t ira'idis
(pacriv kclI rots 6eoU rjdiovs elvai dvaiuiv ras x a P lJT VP^ 0V ^ fl Ta * fuAtxlovs.
Philo had taught (de Plant. 30) that evxa-p"?Tla is exceptionally sacred, and
that towards God it must be an inward sacrifice : 0e<$ 5i ovk iveori yvrjalws
cvxapiTTrjcrai 81 &v vofxl^ovaiv oi 7roX\o2 KaracncfV&v aLvadrifxaTuv dvaiCov — ovSi
yap (rv/nras 6 «6cr/ios lepbv a.S-i&xP €ljl v hv ytvoiro irpbs tt)v tovtov TifjLriv — dXXd Si
itraivuv Kal v/xvojv, ovx °0s 17 7f7wi'iir ^<rerai <pwi>T), dXXd 0O5 6 dei57)j icai
Kadapiliraros vous iwrixituei Kal dva/xiXipei. He proceeds (ibid. 33) to dwell
on the meaning of the name Judah, 5$ ep/njveveTai Kvply e^o/xoXdyjtTii. Judah
was the last (Gn 29 s5 ) son of Leah, for nothing could be added to praise of
God, nothing excels 6 ei)\o7tDv rbv debv rods. This tallies with the well-known
rabbinic saying, quoted in Tanchuma, 55. 2: "in the time of messiah all
sacrifices will cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving will not cease ; all
prayers will cease, but praises will not cease " (on basis of Jer 33 1 and Ps
56 13 ). The praise of God as the real sacrifice of the pious is frequently noted
in the later Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac io 7 ).
In v. 16 the writer notes the second Christian sacrifice of
charity. EuTrou'a, though not a LXX term, is common in
Hellenistic Greek, especially in Epictetus, e.g. Fragm. 15 (ed.
Schenk), eVi x.P r ] " r ^ Tr ] TL KaL ewroiiigi ', Fragm. 45, ovolv Kpdaaov
. . . €i>7roua.9 (where the context suggests " beneficence ").
Koikwkia in the sense of charity or contributions had been
already used by Paul (2 Co 9 13 etc.). To share with others,
to impart to them what we possess, is one way of worshipping
God. The three great definitions of worship or religious service
in the NT (here, Ro 12 12 and Ja i 27 ) are all inward and
ethical ; what lies behind this one is the fact that part of the
food used in ancient OT sacrifices went to the support of the
priests, and part was used to provide meals for the poor.
Charitable relief was bound up with the sacrificial system, for such
parts of the animals as were not burnt were devoted to these
beneficent purposes. An equivalent must be provided in our
238 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 16.
spiritual religion, the writer suggests ; if we have no longer any
animal sacrifices, we must carry on at any rate the charitable
element in that ritual. This is the force of jifj iirikavQaveafe.
Contributions, e.g., for the support of ^yov'/moi, who were not
priests, were unknown in the ancient world, and had to be
explicitly urged as a duty (cp. 1 Co 9 6 ' 14 ). Similarly the needs
of the poor had to be met by voluntary sacrifices, by which
alone, in a spiritual religion, God could be satisfied — tokxutcus
(perhaps including the sacrifice of praise as well as txnroua and
KOivtavia) Ouaiais euapeareirai (cp. 1 1 5- 6 I2 28 ) 6 6eos- This counsel
agrees with some rabbinic opinions (e.g. T. B. Sukkah, 59^: "he
who offers alms is greater than all sacrifices "). The special duty
of supporting the priesthood is urged in Sir 7 30f -, but our author
shows no trace of the theory that almsgiving in general was not
only superior to sacrifices but possessed atoning merit before
God (Sir 3 14 i\er}p.o(Tvvr) yap iraTpos ovk liri\rjcr6r)<j€.Tai, kcu olvtI
a/j.apTiu)v Trpo<TavoiKo8oixr)6r)(TeTa.i vol). In the later rabbinic
theology, prayer, penitence, the study of the Torah, hospitality,
charity, and the like were regarded as sacrifices equivalent to
those which had been offered when the temple was standing.
Thus Rabbi Jochanan b. Zakkai (cp. Schlatter's Jochanan ben
Zakkai, pp. 39 f.) consoled himself and his friends with the
thought, derived from Hos 6 6 , that in the practice of charity
they still possessed a valid sacrifice for sins ; he voiced the
conviction also (e.g. b. baba bathra io b ) that charity (np"T¥) won
forgiveness for pagans as the sin-offering did for Israel. In the
Ep. Barnabas (2 7f -) the writer quotes Jer 7 22 - 23 (Zee 8 17 ) as a
warning to Christians against Jewish sacrifices (aWOdvzadai ovv
6<piiXofji€v Trjv yvwfirjv ttjs ayadwervvr)? rov iraTpos r)p.£)V or' rjfxiv
Acyei, OiXwv rjp.as p.t] Ojuotws 7rA.avo) p.ivov<i CKet'vots tflTtlv, 7rais
■7rpoady<Dfxev aura)), but he quotes Ps 5 1 19 as the description of
the ideal sacrifice.
The tendency in some circles of the later Judaism to spiritualire sacrifice
in general and to insist on its motive and spirit is voiced in a passage like
Jth i6 1M - :
6prj yap £k 6t[i.e\[u)v avv CSaffiv aaKevdrjuerai,
irirpai 5' airb wpoadnrov aov u>s KTjpb's TaKrjcrovTai'
frt 8£ rots <po(5ovp.ivot.s oe <ri> eiiiKareveis aureus"
6ri /juKpbv 7ra<ra dvffla et's 6(rp.7]v evwbtas,
Kal 4\&xi<ttov 7rav ariap els b\oKavrw^a <roi'
6 8e (pofiovfievos rbv nvpiov ixiya.% 81a iravrbs.
Also in a number of statements from various sources, of which that in Ep.
Arist. 234 (ri p.lyiar6v icrri do^rjs ; 6 8e elwe' rb Ttfiav rbv 0e6v tovto 8' iarlv
ov Sibpois ovSi Ovelats, d\\d \pvxys KaOapbr-qri. ko.1 8ia\-fi\peu)s 6<rLa$) may be
cited as a fair specimen. The congruous idea of bloodless sacrifices was
common in subsequent Christianity. Thus the martyr Apollonius {Acta
Apollonii, 44 ; Conybeare's Monuments of Early Christianity, pp. 47-48)
tells the magistrate, " I expected . . . that thy heart would bear fruit, and
XIII. 16, 17.] CHURCH LEADERS 239
that thou wouldst worship God, the Creator of all, and unto Him continually
offer thy prayers by means of compassion ; for compassion shown to men by
men is a bloodless sacrifice and holy unto God." So Jerome's comment runs
on Ps 15 4 ov fjLT) (rvvaydyu tAj ffvvayuryds avrQiv i£ aifidruv. Zvvdywv,
(prjffif, ffvvayuydt £k tQjv iOvQsv, ov 81 al/xdrwv rcti/ras <rvvd£u)' tovt tcrriv, ov
irapaaKevdaw Sid. ttjs vopuKTJs p.01 irpoetpxto-Oai Xarpetas, Si aiv'aews 8e fiaWov
Kai rrjs dvafxdKTov dvaias (Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3. 123). Both in the
Didache (14 1 Khdcart &prov Kal evxapicrTrjcraTe irpo<Te£op.o\oyr)o-dnevoi t&
Tra.paTrTwfxa.Ta vp.Civ, 8-rrws Kadapa-t) dvcia vfiCiv 5) and in Justin Martyr (Dial.
117, Trdvras o5j» ol 81a, tov 6i>6fJ.aTos tovtov dvfflas, 4s wape'SioKev 'lriaovs b
X/hotAs ylveaffat, TovTio~Tiv £irl Trj evxapiffTla tov dprov Kal tov iroT-qplov, rds iv
iravTl t6ttw tt)% yijs ywofiivas birb tQi> 'KpiffTiavuiv, irpoXaflLov b debs p.apTvpel
evape'iTTovs iiirapx^v avT<$), the very prayers at the eucharist are called dvtriat,
but this belongs to a later stage, when the eucharist or love-feast became the
rite round which collections for the poor, the sick, prisoners, and travelling
visitors (vv. 1 '-) gathered, and into which sacrificial language began to be
poured (cp. Justin's Apol. i. 66, 67). In npbs 'Efipalovs we find a simpler
and different line of practical Christianity.
Now for a word on the living Tjyou'uei'oi of the community
(v. 17 ), including himself (vv. 18 - 19 ).
17 Obey your leaders, submit to them ; for they (avrol) are alive to the
interests of your souls, as men who will have to account for their trust. Let
their work be a joy to them and not a grief— which would be a loss to yourselves.
18 Pray for me, for I am sure I have a clean conscience ; my desire is in
every way to lead an honest life. 19 / urge you to this (i.e. to prayer) all the
more, that I may get back to you the sooner.
The connexion of vv. 17f - is not only with v. 7 , but with vv. 8 - 16 .
It would be indeed a grief to your true leaders if you gave way to
these iroiKikai Kal £tvai doctrines, instead of following men who
are really (this is the force of avTol) concerned for your highest
interests. nei0ecr0e (cp. Epict. Fragm. 27, tov ■rrpoo-op.iXovvTa
. . . Smmtkottov ... ei /iev apaivova, olkovuv xprj Kal Tru9io~6at
aura)) Kal fitreiKCTK (vTreiK<i> is not a LXX term) ; strong words but
justified, for the \6yos tov 6tov which Christian leaders preached
meant authoritative standards of life for the community (cp. 1 Co
4 17, 21 14 37 etc.), inspired by the Spirit. Insubordination was
the temptation at one pole, an overbearing temper (1 P 5 s ) the
temptation at the other. Our author knows that, in the case
of his friends, the former alone is to be feared. He does not
threaten penalties for disobedience, however, as Josephus does (c.
Apionem, ii. 194) for insubordination on the part of the Jewish
laity towards a priest : 6 Se ye tovtu) p.rj Treid 6p.evo<; vepe£ci Blktjv <I>s
cis tov 6eov o.vt6v aaefiuv. Rather, he singles out the highminded
devotion of these leaders as an inducement to the rank and file
to be submissive. Auto! yap aypuirvouviv uirep twc ^iu\S>y uuuv,
almost as Epictetus says of the true Cynic who zealously con-
cerns himself with the moral welfare of men, VTTeprjypvirvrjKev irrrep
av6pwTT<Dv (iii. 22. 95 ; he uses the verb once in its literal sense
of a soldier having to keep watch through the night, iii. 24. 32).
240 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 17.
The force of the phrase is flattened by the transference of inrep
twv \]rux<j<>v ifj.u>v to a position after ci>s \6yov d-n-oSwo-ocTes (as A vg).
The latter expression, <Ls (conscious that) Xoyov airobwo-ovTes (<Ls
with fut. ptc. here only in NT), is used by Chrysostom, de
Sacerdotio, iii. 18 (cp. vi. 1), to enforce a sense of ministerial
responsibility (el yap twv oi/ceuov irXr]p.p.(Xr)p.aLT<jJV evOvvas bir£)(0VTe<;
(ppiTTOficv, J)S ov 8vvrj(r6p.€voL to irvp €K<puyeiv £k€lvo, ti xpr) Treicrecrdai
irpoahonav tov virep toctovtwv aTroXoyiicrOai. jxlXXovra;), but in
IIpos 'E/Jpcuous the writer assumes that the riyov/xevoi are doing
and will do their duty. Any sadness which they may feel is
due, not to a sense of their own shortcomings, but to their
experience of wilfulness and error among their charges. Adyov
dVoSiSdVai is more common in the NT than the equivalent Xoyov
SiSoVai, which recurs often in Greek literature, e.g. in Plato's
Sympos. 189^, irpoo'iyf. tov vow kcu ovtws Xcye das Sutcroiv Xoyov,
or in the complaint of the Fayyum peasants (a.d. 207), who
petition the local centurion that the disturbers of their work may
be called to account : d£iouvT«s, lav 0-01 S6$rj, KeXevo-ai auTovs
dyOrjvai £7Ti o-c Xoyov d7roSwo-ovTas 7rcpi tovtou (GCP. i. 354 25- 26 ).
In Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 42, John says to the captain of
the robbers, eyu> Xpto"Tw Xoyov Swo"U) vnip o~ov.
The ivo clause (Iva jieTd xapds touto ttoiwo-ii' ical \ii] orei'd£oKT€s)
goes back to iretOeo-de . . . viruKCTe. The members have it in
their power to thwart and disappoint their ^yov^cvot. Tovro ir.
refers to dypinrvowiv, and the best comment on *ai p.i] o-T€vd£ovTes
is in Denny's hymn :
"O give us hearts to love like Thee,
Like Thee, O Lord, to grieve
Far more for others' sins than all
The wrongs that we receive."
The last four words, dXiunreXes yap "f" 1 ' touto, form a rhe-
torical litotes, as when Pindar (Olynip. i. 53) remarks, dKcpSeia
XtXoy^cv OapLiva. Ka/caydpos. It would be a " sore loss" to them
if their lives failed to answer the hopes and efforts of their
r]yovp.evoi, hopes like those implied in 6 9 and io 39 . 'AXvo-itcXcs
(" no profit ") is probably used after Xdyov d7ro6wo-ovT€s with its
sense of "reckoning." Compare the use of the adverb in
Theophrastus, viii. 1 1 (ov yap p.6vov if/evSovrai dXXa. «at dXuo-rreXais
d7raXXaTTovo-i), and the dry remark of Philo (in Flaccum, 6),
speaking about the attempt of the Alexandrian anti-Semites to
erect images in Jewish places of worship, when he says that
Flaccus might have known a>s oi Xvcm-eXes Z6r) iraTpia kivcIv !
The term lent itself to such effective understatements, as in
Philo's aphorism (Fragments of Philo, ed. J. Rendel Harris,
p. 70) t6 iin.opKiiv dvoo-iov Kal oXvo-tTtXio-TaTov.
XIII. 18, 19.] PRAYERS 24 1
The next word (v. 18 ) is about himself. npo(T€u'x€o-0€ (continue
praying) irepl (cp. 2 Mac I 6 /cat vvv (L8e tap.cv Trpoo-(v\6p.evoL irepi
vuwv) Tjp.uK (plural of authorship), TreiSopeGa (a modest confidence :
"whatever some of you may think, 1 believe") yap on kci\t)v
ow€i8t]o-ik Ixop.€f. He is conscious of a keen desire (OeXovres as
in 12 17 ) to act in a straightforward, honest way ; hence he can ask
their prayers. Hence also they may feel confident and eager
about praying for him. The writer chooses KaX-qv (cp. on v. 9 )
instead of ayadrjv as his adjective for o-wuSrjcriv, probably for the
sake of assonance with the following KaAws, perhaps also to avoid
the hiatus after on. When he adds, iv -nacnv (here neuter)
koAws GeXoKTts d>acrrpe<|>€CT8<u (a phrase which occurs in the
Pergamos inscript. 459 5 KaAws kcu €vSo'£ws dvacrrpacpfjj'ai, in the
1st century B.C. inscription (Priene, 115 5 ) dvao-rpecpd/icvos kv iraaiv
<f>i\[av6pu)ir(Ds], and in Epict. iv. 4. 46, iopryv dyeiv Bvvacrai. naff
■f]p.ipav, otl /caAws avt<TTpa<pr)s iv rwSe t<3 epyw, etc.), the language
recalls that of 2 Co i u - 12 where Paul appeals for the help of his
readers' prayers and pleads his honesty of conscience (t6 p.aprv-
piov tt/s <rvvei8r}<T€(D<s yp-wv, otl . . . ai'eo-Tpd(pr]p.tv kt\.). Perhaps
the writer is conscious that his readers have been blaming him,
attributing (say) his absence from them to unworthy motives, as
in the case of Paul (e.g. 1 Th 2 18 , 2 Co i 17f -). This may be the
feeling which prompts the protest here and the assurances in
vv. 19 - 23 . " I am still deeply interested in you ; my absence is
involuntary ; believe that."
Kat is inserted before irepi by D vt Chrys. (possibly as a reminiscence of
1 Th 5 25 ), i.e. pray as well as obey ("et orate pro nobis," d) ; this would
emphasize the fact that the writer belonged to the Yyov/xevoi. But the plural
in v. 18 is not used to show that the writer is one of the Tr/o<up.€voi mentioned
in v. 17 , for whom the prayers of the community are asked. He was one of
them ; ijnuiv here is the literary plural already used in 5 11 6 9- u . There
are apt parallels in Cicero's de Officiis, ii. 24 (" Quern nos . . . e Graeco in
Latinum convertimus. Sed toto hoc de genere, de quaerenda, de collocanda
pecunia vellens etiam de utenda"), and OP. x. 1296 (the letter of a boy
to his father), iroid . . . <pi\oirovounev icai avaxj/vxhuw- Hei$6/xe9a (Treido/xai
256. 1319. 2127) has been changed into ireiroiGofiev by k c C c D ^ W 6. 104.
263. 326 (Blass), probably because the latter (" we are confident") is stronger
than weldoueda., which (cp. Ac 26 26 ) only amounts to "we believe" (though
implying "we are sure"). Retaining ireid6ntda, A. Bischoff (Zeits. fiir die
neut. Whs. ix. 17 1 f. ) evades the difficulty by altering the order of the words :
wpcxre&x.. irepl rip-dv ko.\i\v yap <rvv. ?^;om«»', Sti weldo/xtda iv irdcriy k. 0.
avaffTp£<pe<7&ai, i.e. taking Sri as "because."
As in Philem 22 , the writer's return is dependent on his friends'
prayers (v. 19 ) ; specially (see p. 17) let them intercede with God for
his speedy restoration to them, Xva Tdxioy diroKaTaoTaOw up.iv (cp.
OP. I 81 (A.D. 49-50) aTTOKaTeo-TaOr) p.01 6 vids). Td^tov may
mean "the sooner" (i.e. than if you did not pray) or simply
" soon " (as in v. 23 , where, as in Hellenistic Greek, it has lost
16
242 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 19, 20.
its comparative meaning). What detained the writer, we cannot
tell. Apparently (v. 23 ) it was not imprisonment.
A closing prayer and doxology, such as was not uncommon
in epistles of the primitive church (e.g. i Th 5 23 , i P 5 11 ), now
follows. Having asked his readers to pray for him, he now prays
for them.
20 May the God of peace "who brought up" from the dead our Lord (7 14 )
Jesus (see p. lxiii), "the" great "Shepherd of the sheep, with the blood of
the eternal covenant" ^furnish you with everything that is good for the doing
of his will, creating in your lives by Jesus Christ what is acceptable in his
own sight ! To him (i.e. God) be (sc. ei'77) glory for ever and ever. Amen.
'0 8e6s ttjs clpr^s means the God of saving bliss (see on 12 11 ),
elprjvrj being taken in a sense like the full OT sense of the secure
prosperity won by the messianic triumph over the hostile powers
of evil (cp. 2 14 7 2 ). There is no special allusion here, as in
Paul's use of the phrase (Ro 15 33 , 2 Co 13 11 etc.), to friction in
the community ; the conflict is one in which God secures dprjvr]
for his People, a conflict with evil, not strife between members
of the church. The method of this triumph is described in
some OT phrases, which the writer uses quite apart from their
original setting. The first quotation is from Is 63 11 ttov 6
dva/?i/3dcras i< rijs y^s rov iroifxiva rwv irpofidraiv, which the writer
applies to Jesus — his only reference to the resurrection (cp. on
vv. 11 - 12 ). But there is no need (with Blass) to follow Chrysostom
in reading r>}s yij<; here for vcK/awv. With deayeu' in this sense,
Ik vtKpuv (so Ro 10 7 ) or some equivalent (e'f dSov, Ps 30 4 , Wis
16 13 , Joseph. Ant. vi. 14. 2) is much more natural. In toc
iroifieVa twc irpopdiwi' tok fieyav, 6 /teyas is applied to him as in
4 14 io 21 . The figure of the Troifirjv, which never occurs in Paul,
plays no role in our author's argument as it does in 1 Peter (2 s5
5 4 ) ; he prefers Upevs or apxqyos, and even here he at once
passes to the more congenial idea of the haOrfKr]. Jesus is the
great Shepherd, as he has made himself responsible for the
People, identifying himself with them at all costs, and sacrificing
his life in order to save them for God. But as death never
occurs in the OT description of the divine shepherd, not even
in the 23rd Psalm, the writer blends with his quotation from
Isaiah another — eV cup.a,Ti oia8r)KT]s alwiaou, a LXX phrase from
Zech 9 11 (cv cu/xaTi 8ia6r/Ky]<; (rov i£a.Tr£<TTei\a<; Seayu'ous crov),
Is 55 s (8iadrj(rop.ai vp.lv hia6r)Kt}v alwviov), etc. 'Ev atyaan 8ia6iqKr)<;
aliDviov goes with avayaywv, not with rov iroip.iva, in which case
rov would need to be prefixed to the phrase. Jesus was raised
to present his blood as the atoning sacrifice which mediated the
8ia6rji<r) (9 11 - 24f -). To the resurrection (cp. on v. 12 ) is thus
ascribed what elsewhere in the epistle is ascribed to the €to-eX0£iv
cis tci dyia. But as the stress falls on alwviov, then more is
XIII. 20, 21.] THE SHEPHERD'S BLOOD 243
implied than that apart from the alpa no htad-qK-q could have
been instituted. In reality the thought resembles that of 9 14
(os Sta TrvevpaTOS attoi'tou (avrbv TrpoarjveyKCV . . . KaOapul tt/i'
<rvi>ei8r](Tiv r]p.u)v . . . €is to Xarpevciv Sew £u>vti), where eis to
Karpeveiv 6tw corresponds to eis to iroi-fjo-ai to 0e\T]ua aoTou
below ; lv ktX. is " equipped with," not " in virtue of." This
interpretation is in line with the author's argument in chs.
7-10. " Videtur mihi apostolus hoc belle, Christum ita resur-
rexisse a mortuis, ut mors tamen eius non sit abolita, sed
aeternum vigorem retineat, ac si dixisset : Deus filium suum
excitavit, sed ita ut sanguis, quern semel in morte fudit, ad
sanctionem foederis aeterni post resurrectionem vigeat fructumque
suum proferat perinde ac si semper flueret" (Calvin). In
KaTapn'o-ai (the aor. optative) * ktA.., there is a parallel to the
thought of Ph 2 13 . Eis to iroLrjaai to 6e\rjp.a avrov recalls the
language of io 86 , and 81a 'lr]o-ou Xptorou goes with -rroiwi' : the
power of God in our lives as for our lives (v. 20 ) works through
the person of Jesus Christ. To take Sta 1. X. with t6 eudpeorov
eyojmof auTou yields an unobjectionable sense, corresponding to
the thought of v. 15 . But to . . . avrov stands quite well by
itself (cf. 1 Jn 3 s2 ).
The writer makes no such use of the shepherd and flock metaphor as, e.g.,
Philo had done. The Jewish thinker ( Fit. A/os. i. n) argues that the
calling of a shepherd is the best preparation for anyone who is to rule over
men ; hence " kings are called shepherds of their people" as a title of honour.
He also interprets the sheep as the symbol of a nature which is capable of
improvement (de sacrif. Abel. 34, TrpoKOTrrjs 5t Trpoparov, ws /cat atirb drjXol
ToVvofxa., crvp.(3o\oi>). The classical habit of describing kings as shepherds of
their people would help to make the metaphor quite intelligible to readers of
non-Jewish origin. Compare, e.g. , the saying of Cyrus (Xenophon, Cyropaedia,
viii. 2. 14), that a good shepherd resembled a good king, tov re yap von^a
XpV vaL <=<Pv evSai/iova t& kttjvtj ttoiovvto. xPV a @ aL avrois, 7) 5rj irpo/3&Twi> evdai-
fiovla, t6v re j3acn\{a waavrus ev8al/j.oi>as Tr6\eis sal avdpwirovs troiovvTa
flavTi was soon furnished with the homiletic addition of epyo) (C K M F
syr sah arm eth Chrys. Thdt. etc.), or even Zpyy nal Xdyq) (A, from 2 Th 2 17 ).
Iloiuiv has either ctury (x* A C* 33* 1288 boh) or eavrif (Greg. Nyss.) or
avrds (d 1912) prefixed. Hort, admitting that "it is impossible to make
sense of o.vt£" (B. Weiss, Blass = eai'Ty), maintains that oi;r6s is original.
It is a homiletic insertion, out of which clvtl) arose by corruption. 'Hfj.iv
(n D M *■ 33. 104. 181. 326. 917. 927. 1288. 1739. 1912, etc. syr v K sah boh
arm) is merely an error for vp.iv, due to the preceding rjfi.Qi'.
A personal postscript (vv. 22-24 ) is now added, as 1 P 5 12 " 14
after 5 10 - n .
22 I appeal to you, brothers (3** 12 IO 19 ), to bear with this appeal of mine.
It is but a short letter.
1 This lonely occurrence of the optative points to its tendency after the
LXX to disappear ; thus, apart from fir] yevoiro, it only occurs once in a
writer like Epictetus (iii. 5. n).
244 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 22.
23 You must understand that our brother Timotheus is now free. If he
comes soon, he and I will see you together.
24 Salute all your leaders and all the saints. The Italians salute you.
28 Grace be with you all. Amen.
The Timotheus referred to (in v. 23 ) is probably the Timo-
theus who had been a colleague of Paul. The other allusions
have nothing to correspond with them in the data of the NT.
But there is no ground for supposing that vv. 22 " 25 were added,
either by the writer himself (VVrede) or by those who drew up
the canon, in order to give a Pauline appearance to the docu-
ment (see Introd., pp. xxviii f.). Seeberg's reasons for regarding
vv 22-25 as a fragment of some other note by the same writer are
that 23b implies not a church but a small group of Christians,
and that vv. 18 - 23 presuppose different situations ; neither reason
is valid. The style and contents are equally unfavourable to
Perdelwitz's theory, that vv. 22 " 25 were added brevi mann by some
one who wrote out a copy of the original Xoyos irapa.K\rjcrew<; and
forwarded it to an Italian church.
In v. 2 - di'exeaGe, for which avT^aOi. (J. Pricaeus apud Tit i 9 )
is a needless conjecture, takes a genitive (as in 2 Ti 4 3 rrj<;
vyLaLvovcrrj<; SiSao-xaAias ovk dve£ovrai, and in Philo, quod omnis
probus, 6, koX 7rws 7raxpos fxev fj p^Tpos lirtTayp.a.T^iiv 7ratoes dveYOVTtn,
yvwpifj.oi Se a»y av v<j>-qyr]Ta\ Sta/ceAeuaji/rai). It has been flattened
into dve'x«r#ai (infinitive as in i P 2 11 ) by D* ^ vg arm 181. 436.
1288. 13 1 1. 1873, etc. (Blass). A written homily may be like a
speech (Ac 13 15 ), a Xoyos tt}s irapai<\'rjo-€u>s (cp. on I2 5 ); irapa-
KA770-1S echoes irapaKaXew He is not the only early Christian
writer who mildly suggested that he had not written at undue
length (cp. e.g. I P 5 12 Si' oAi'ywv eypanj/a, irapaKaXwv ktX. ; Barn I 5 - 8 )
Kal y°-P ("etenim" as 4 2 ) 8id Ppax«wf (sc. Xo'ywv) en-eo-TciXa r
(epistolary aorist) 6jju>. Atd /Spa^eW was a common phrase in this
connexion ; e.g. Lucian's Toxaris, 56 (ttzmttIov Kal ravrd croi
vop.o6erovvTL /cat Sid /Spa^ewr XeKTeov, fir] kou K(lp.r}<; t)plv rrj a.Korj
avp.irepivo(TTU)i>). IIpos 'EjSpaious may be read aloud easily in one
hour. The writer has had a good deal to say (iro\v<;, 5 11 ), and
he has now said it. Not I hope, he adds pleasantly, at too great
length ! As for the Suo-eppr/i'cuTos Xe'yav, that is another question
which he does not raise here. He is not pleading for a patient
reading, because he has had to compress his argument into a
short space, which makes it hard to follow, owing to its highly
condensed character. What he does appear to anticipate is the
possibility of his readers resenting the length at which he has
1 For iwio-Tti\a (here as in Ac 15 20 21 25 ; Theophr. 24 13 iiriarlW^v ar;
ypa<peiv kt\. = " write," " send a letter "), see Laqueur's Quaest. Epigraph.
et Papyr. Selectae, 16 f. (iin<iTiW(i.v=. " communicare aliquid cum aliquo sive
per hominem sive per epistolam ").
XIII. 22, 23.] SHORT LETTERS 245
written. When the younger Pliny returned a book to Tacitus,
with some criticisms upon its style and matter, he said he was
not afraid to do so, since it was those most deserving praise whc
accepted criticism patiently ("neque enim ulli patientius repre-
hunduntur quam qui maxime laudari merentur," Epp. vii. 20).
The author of IIpos 'E/3/Wous might have taken this line, for he
has done justice to the good qualities of his friends (e.g. 6 9f - io 39
i3 lf ')> even in reproving them for backwardness and slowness.
But he prefers to plead that his words have not been long ; his
readers surely cannot complain of being wearied by the length of
his remarks. Not long before, Seneca had made the same kind
of observation to Lucilius (Ep. xxxviii. 1) about short letters
being more effective than lengthy discussions. " Merito exigis
ut hoc inter nos epistularum commercium frequentemus, pluri-
mum proficit sermo, quia minutatim inrepit animo . . . ali-
quando utendum est et illis, ut ita dicam, concionibus, ubi qui
dubitat inpellendus est : ubi vero non hoc agendum est ut veht
discere sed ut discat, ad haec submissiora uerba ueniendum est.
facilius intrant et haerent : nee enim multis opus est, sed efficaci-
bus." But Seneca's practice was not always up to his theory in
this respect. His Stoic contemporary Musonius Rufus gave
examples as well as precepts of brevity, which were more telling
(e.g. ocrris Se iravra^ov SeiTcu d7ro8ei£eojs kou ottov <Ta<pr) -ra 7rpdyp.aTa
icrTLV, 77 Sid ttoX\u)v a.TrooeiKvvcr$ai /Jol'Actcii avTio ra oV oXiytov
8vvdfj.eia, TravTairaaiv o.toito<; /cat ovapa.6r)<;, ed. Hense, pp. I, 2).
The literary critic Demetrius considered that the length of a
letter should be carefully regulated (to 8k ueyeflos avvecrTdXdu) rijs
cVto-ToA^?, De Elocut. 228) ; letters that were too long and stilted
in expression became mere treatises, crvyypdfxfiaTa, as in the case of
many of Plato's, whereas the true liriuToX-q, according to Demetrius
(ibid. 231), should be <fnXo(pp6vrj(n<; in a brief compass (cnWo/xos).
Which would apply to ILoos "E^paiov;. Erasmus comments :
" Scripsi paucis, ut ipse vos brevi visurus." He may have, but
he does not say so.
In v. 23 yivwcTKere is imperative ; he is conveying a piece of
information. • See, e.g., Tebt. P. 37 2 (73 B.C.) ymoo-Ke K^aXav
. . . TrpocreXrjXvOevai ArjprjTpiu) : ibid. I2 2 (n8 B.C.) 36 2 56 s . The
construction with the participle is common (e.g. Lk 8 46 ) ; you
must understand tov aSeX^ rjpjv (omitted by X c D b - c K P * 6
Chrys. etc.) Tip-oGeok diroXeXuueVoi', i.e. "is (set) free," not
necessarily from prison. The general sense, ranging from " is
free" to "has started," may be illustrated, e.g., from the applica-
tion of a woman to leave Alexandria via Pharos (OP. 1271 45 ,
iii A.D. : d£ia> ypdipai ere tw 67riTpo7rw 1-775 Qdpov diroXvcrcu p.€ /card
to !#os), or from BGU. i. 27 12 * 15 (icaff rjpipav Trpoa8ex6p[e]6a
Si/aicrcrwptav wore Iws cr^p.tpov p.r]8ivav a.7roXeXvcr6ai twv uctoi crtVou),
246 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS [XIII. 23, 24.
where a. = " has set out," as in Ac 28 25 (aireXvovTo). The inter-
pretation of the next words p.e9' ou iav Taxio^ epxrjTCu o\J/oficu up.ds
depends upon whether Timotheus is supposed to join the writer
or to journey straight to the community addressed. In the
latter case, the writer, who hopes to be coming soon (v. 19 )
himself, looks forward to meeting him there. In the former
case, they will travel together. It is natural to assume that when
the writer sent this message, Timotheus was somewhere else, and
that he was expected ere long to reach the writer. For ctyo/xai =
visit, see 3 Jn 14 eA7ri£w Se evditos ISelv ere, etc. 'Eaj/ Ta^iov
(.px^rai may mean either, " as soon as he comes," or " if he
comes soon." The latter suits the situation implied in v. 19
better. The writer (in v. 19 ) asks the prayers of his readers, that
some obstacle to his speedy return may be removed. If this
obstacle were the hindrance that kept Timotheus from joining
him on a journey which they had already planned to the church
(Riggenbach), he would have said, "Pray for Timotheus, I
cannot leave for you till he rejoins me." But the idea is : as
the writer is rejoining his friends soon (he hopes), he will be
accompanied by Timotheus, should the latter arrive before he
has to start. Written advice is all very well, but he hopes soon
to follow up this Xoyo? TrapaKXrjo-ews with personal intercourse,
like Seneca in Ep. vi. 5 (" plus tamen tibi et uiua vox et convictus
quam oratio proderit. in rem praesentem uenias oportet, primum
quia homines amplius oculis quam auribus credunt, deinde quia
longum iter est per praecepta, breue et efficax per exempla").
The greeting comes as usual last (v. 24 ). 'A(nrd<ra<70e ktA. is
an unusual turn, however; the homily was evidently sent to the
community, who are told to greet all their ^you/Ac^oi. This finds
its nearest parallel in Paul's similar injunction (Ro i6 3f ) to the
Ephesian Christians to salute this and that eminent member of
their circle. Still, no other NT church is bidden to salute its
leaders ; and though the writer plainly wishes to reinforce his
counsel in v. 17 , the irdrras suggests that the persons addressed
were " part of the whole church of a large city ... a congrega-
tion attached to some household " (Zahn) ; they are to convey
the writer's greetings to all the leaders of the larger local church —
and to all their fellow-members (koi irata-as tous dyious being more
intelligible, in the light of a passage like Ph 4 21 aenrdo-aade warm
dyiov). To his personal greetings he now adds greetings from some
Italians. In 01 dird ttjs 'iTaXias, awo may have its usual sense of
" domiciled at " (practically = eV), as, e.g., in OP. i. 81 (a.d. 49-50),
where t5>v a-rr '0£vpvyxa>i> means " the inhabitants of Oxy-
rhynchus," or in HX-jvt . . . ano 3?/xai), i.e. at Phmau (ostracon of
a.d. 192, quoted in Deissmann's Light from the East, p. 186).
If it thus means residents in Italy, the writer is in Italy
XIII. 24.] FAREWELL 247
himself. But ol 6.™ tt}? 'iTaAias, on the analogy of Ac 21 27
(01 a-n-o rrjs 'Ao-tas 'IovSaiot), might equally well mean Italians
resident for the time being outside Italy ; in this case the
writer, who is also abroad, is addressing some Italian community,
to which their countrymen forward greetings. Grammatically,
either rendering is possible, and there is no tradition to decide
the question. Perhaps o! anr6 rijs 'iTaAias is more natural,
however, as a description of some Italian Christians abroad who
chanced to be in the same locality as the writer and who take
this opportunity of sending their greetings by him to an Italian
community. If the writer was in Italy, we should have expected
7ra^T€s ol airo rrjs 'IraXias, considering the size of Italy and the
scattered Christian communities there at this period.
The final benediction, tj x»P l s (•""• '°" ra) or c "?) f JL6T °' ttc^twv
u/xwi' (Tit 3 15 , 2 Ti 4 22 ) has a liturgical djirjy, which is omitted
by N* W fuld sah 33 ; the homily was, of course, intended to be
read aloud at worship.
INDEXES.
I. INDEX GRAECITATIS.
Words marked * are peculiar in NT to Hebrews.
,, ,, f occur only in quotations from LXX.
,, ,, X are peculiar in NT to Luke (gospel, Acts) and Hebrews.
,, ,, [Paul] [T] [P] are only used elsewhere in NT by Paul, or in
the Pastoral Epistles, or in I Peter.
fkapto, 5 4 . 7", 9 4 -
"A^SeX, II 4 , 12 24 .
'Appad/x, 2 16 , 6 13 , 7
1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 9
I 1
8. 17
dya06s, 13 s1 : ra aya$d, 9 11 , IO 1 .
t dyaWlaais, I 9 .
f dyairdb), I 9 , I2 6 .
dydirn, 6 10 , IO 24 .
dyairr]T6i (dyairrjToi), 6 9 .
&yye\os, I 4 - 5 - «• (LXX) 7 - (LXX) ls ,
2 2 - 6 - 7 -(LXX) 9 - 16 , 12 22 , 13 2 .
* dyei>ea\6yijT0i, J 3 .
ayidfa, 2 U , 9 13 , io 10 - 14 - 29 , 13 12 .
ayiacr/Ads, I2 14 .
4710s, 3 1 (Christians) : 01 dyioi, 6 10 ,
13 24 : (rd) iyia, 8 2 , 9 2 - 3 - 8 - ,2 - 24 - 25 ,
IO 19 13" : irvedfia ttyiov, 2 4 , 3 7 ,
6 4 , 9 8 , io 15 : rd C1710V, 9 1 .
07167-775, 1 2 10 [Paul?].
X dyKvpa, 6 19 .
d7^o^w, 5 2 .
* dyv6ij/j,a, 9 7 .
dypvirvtu) (virip), 13 17 .
470J, 2 10 .
d7wv, 12 1 [Paul].
&de\<f>6t, 2 n - 12 - (LXX) 17 , 3 1 - ,2 , 7 s ,
8 U (LXX), io 19 , i3 22 - 23 .
idSiKla(\ 9 ?), 8 12 .
&8ikos, 6 10 .
dS6/«/ios, 6 8 [Paul].
dStWros (dSiWrov), 6 4 - 18 , io 4 , II 6 .
t del, 3".
ddertw, IO 28 .
dfcVrjjim, 7 18 , 9 M .
&6\ii<tis, IO 32 .
af7etoy, II 37 .
! AtytfjTrios, 1 1 29 .
Atyvn-Tos, 3 16 , 8 9 ,
ai'Stis, I2 28 {s.v.l) [T].
11
26. 27
,14
,7. 12. 13. 14. 18. 19. 20.
25
IO
,4. 19. 29
II
28
't
(LXX) 21 -
, 2 4.24 i jjU. 13.20 (LXX).
al/j.a.T€KXvcrla ) 9 22 .
atveffLS, 13 16 .
alpelffdcu (eX6 / ae»'os), II !S [Paul].
: aicr6r]T7ipiov, 5 14 .
alffxvvrj, I2 2 .
aMa, 2 11 .
: afrtos, 5 9 .
alwv, 1 8 (LXX), 5 8 (LXX), 6 8 - 20 ,
7 17 - (LXX) 21 (LXX), 7 24 - 28 : o\
alwves, I 2 , 9 26 , II 3 , 13 s - 21 .
al&viot, 13 20 (5iadr)KT)), 9 15 (kXtj/jo-
vo/ila), 6 2 ((cptua), 9 12 (Xt'/Tpaxrts),
9 14 (Trvev/ia), 5 9 (<ru}T7]pia).
Akclkos, 7 26 [Paul].
&Kavda, 6 8 .
1 d/cardXirros, 7 18 -
d(f\(fr;s, IO 23 .
d*""?. 4 2 , 5
11
,1. 3
IB. 16
axoou, 2 1 - s , 3 7 - (LXX)
(LXX), I2 19 .
dKpodiviov, 7 4 .
&Kpos, 11 21 (to dx-poi', LXX)
dXrtdeia, io 28 .
dXijffi^f, 8 8 , 9 24 , io 22 .
34 8
INDEXES
249
9. 34
t
dXXd, 2", 3", 5 4 - 8 . 7 16 , 9 24 ,
io 3 - 28 - 39 , 11 13 , i2 11 - 22 - :!6 (LXX) )
I3 14 - ,
' dXXdffcrw, I .
dW^Xos, IO 24 .
dXXos, 4 8 , II s5 .
dXXorpios, 9 25 , 1 1
dXX* ov, 3 16 , 4 2 .
1 dXufftreXTjs, I3 n .
a/xaprdvu), 3 17 , IO 26 .
d/uxprfo, I 3 , 2 17 , 3 13 , 4 18 , 5 U S . 7*.
8" (LXX), 9 J6 - 28 , io 2 - 3 - *■ 6 -
(LXX) 8 - "• 12 - "• (LXX) 18 - 26 ,
II 28 , I2 1 - 4 , 13 11 .
dfj.apTU)\6i, 7 26 , 1 2 s .
&(*\4u, 2 3 , 8 9 (LXX).
dfie/MITTOS, 8 7 .
f d/ueratfe-ros, 6 17 * 18 .
<w(?), I3 21 - 25 -
* d/iijrwp, 7 3 -
d^axros, 7 M (Christ), 13 4 (Chris-
tians).
■ 6./J./J.0S, II 12 .
&fxw/j.os, 9 14 .
dv, i 13 (LXX), 4 8 , 8 4 - 7 , io 2 , 11 15 .
dva7Kaios, 8 3 .
dvdyKt), 7 12 - 27 , 9 16 - 23 .
d^w, 13 20 .
: dj'a5^x°M ( "j II 17 .
: dvafleajp^uj, 13 7 .
dvaipiw, IO 9 .
h d^a/caiJ'/fw, 6 6 .
dva/cd^TTTw, II 15 .
' dvaXo-yifo/xat, I2 3 .
avafxifj-vrjcrKU, IO 32 .
d«'d/iJ'r;j p ts, IO 3 .
dvapldfj-riTOS, II 12 .
dydorcKm, 6 2 , II 38 .
avaaTavp6o}, 6 6 .
dva<TTpt<pofj.ai, IO 33 , 1 3".
dvaarpocp^i, 13 7 .
t
t:
*
t
dvarAXw, 7 14 .
dva<p£pu, 7 s7 (0wrfas), 9 s8 {ap.ap-
rlas), 13 15 (flucr/ai/).
d^x w > J3 22 -
fodpuros, 2 8 (LXX), 5 1 , 6 16 , 7 8 - 28 ,
> 8 2 , 9» 1 3 s (LXX).
dvirifii, 13 8 .
dviffTTj/xi, 7 U - 18 (intrans.).
dvofxia, I 9 (?), 8 12 , IO 17 .
dvopdbu, I2 12 .
avraycovt^o/jiai, 12 4 .
dvTairo5L5u}fj.i, io 30 .
dwf, I2 2 - 16 .
dvTiKadi(jTr)fu, I2 4 .
diriXovfa, 6 16 , 7 7 . 12*.
dvTirviros, 9 24 [P].
dvi)7T(5raKTos, 2 8 [T].
• dvw, I2 18 .
! dvJrrepov, io 8 .
d^a;0eXi7s, 7 1S [T].
d£tos, II 38 .
d£i<5u>, 3 s , io 29 .
ddparoj, II 27 [Paul],
■ d7ra77^XXw, 2 12 .
: diraXXcurcrw, 2 15 .
fiTraf, 6\ 9 7 - *• »• M
(LXX) 27 .
dirapdfiaTos, 7 24 .
dirdrT?, 3 1S .
dirdrajp, J 3 .
' dirauyaff/jLa, I s .
direldeia, 4 6 - u [Paul].
direidiu), 3 18 , II 31 .
' direipos, 5 13 .
direKd^xo/J-ai, 9 s8 .
diriffTio, 3 12, 19 .
d7r<5, 3", 4 3 - 410 ,
? 1. 2. 13. 26 > gl^ ,
,12. IS. 34 ,,15. 25
IO^
12
K
'3
5 7 - 8 .
,14, M>
24
6 1 - 7 ,
IO-
Il'*» , " ) 12'
d7ro,SdXXa>, IO 38 .
diropXtiro], II 26 .
I diroypd<pu}, 1 2 s3 .
a7ro5e»caT6w, 7 8 (?).
d7ro5i5w^i, I2 n,ls , 13 17 .
dirodoictfidfa, I2 17 .
iiroOvncTKU, 7 8 , 9 27 , IO 28 , Il4.13.21.37
diroKadiaTT]}j.i, 13 19 .
drtfcet/cat, 9 s7 .
dirAXaiwis, n 26 [T].
dn-oXeiVw (dTroXetVercu), 4 6 ' 9 , IO 26 .
• dirdWv/xi, I 11 .
d7roXi'>rpuwtj, 9 18 , 1 1 38 .
d7roXi/a;, 13 23 .
a7rocrrAXw, I 14 .
dw6<TTo\o$, 3 1 (Christ).
diro<rrp^0w, 12 25 .
dTrortdrifu, I2 1 .
dirtiXeia, IO 39 .
dpa, 4 9 , I2 8 .
dpirfw, 13 8 .
dpfios, 4 12 .
dpviofxai., II 24 .
apirayri, IO 34 .
dpros, 9 2 .
d/>x»?. I 10 («"■' dpxds, LXX), 2»,
3 14 , 5 12 , 6«, 7 3 -
;ipxnv&*, 2 10 , 12 2 .
dpxtcp«5j, 2 17 , 3 1 , 4 14 - 18 , 5 1 - 8 - 10 ,
6 » 7 26.27.28 > gi. 3 ( gl. U. & I£)1 l
_ (*.».£), I 3 ».
; dffdXeuroj, I2 28
iffOivem, 4 18 , 5 2 , 7 s8 , 11
aadei>T)s, 7 18 .
,34
250
INDEXES
affTrafafiai, II 13 , 13 24 .
fj dtrrelos, 1 1 23 .
J &(TTpOV, II 12 .
d<r0aX?js, 6 19 .
atfrd, 2 10 , 9 s3 .
aun}, 4 6 , 6 7 , 7 11 " 18 , 9 s , II 4 - ",
I2 11 - 17 .
ai/T(5s (aura, ai/rots, airroD, avruj,
aiiTwv), 18.4.6.7.8.11.1a (LXX),
2 6 - (LXX) 7 - (LXX) 11 , 3 2 - 3 - 10
(LXX), 4 6 - 8 , 5 5 - 7 , 8 8 - 9 - (LXX) 10 ,
gS3 I0 1(> j j 5. 6. 11. 16. 19 j 2 5.
(LXX) 10 -' 17 , i 3 3 -'-s.n
a^ris, i*- (LXX) 12 , 2 14 - 18 , 4 10 , 5",
IO 12 , 13 s - 8 : airrol, I 11 (LXX),
3 10 (LXX), 8 9 -(LXX) 10 (LXX),
13 s - 17 : avrdv, 2 6 - (LXX) 7
(LXX), 3 2 - 3 , 5 8 - 7 , 7 1 - 21 - 24 ,
9 24. 26.2 8) U 5. 6. 19 5 j 318 . al ) r0! } s ,
I 4 - 12 (LXX), 2 11 , 4 8 , 8 9 -(LXX)
10 (LXX), io ,6 (LXX), 11 16 :
ai/rd, 9 23 : auras, IO 11 , II 13 :
avr-f), II 11 ; avTTjv, 4 6 , 5 11 , IO 1 ,
12 17 : avTrjs, 6 7 , 7 18 , 9 5 , II 4 - 9 ,
I2 n : airov, I 3 , 2«-(LXX) 8
(LXX), 3 2 - (LXX) 5 - «• 7 - (LXX)
18 (LXX), 4 1 - 7 -(LXX) 10 - 13 , 6 10 ,
7 M , io 13 (LXX), ii 4 - 5 , I2 5 - (LXX)
w I3 i3. ij.21. a ^rw I /(2 10 , 7 6 - 6 - 25 ,
jj16. 28. 35 . LXX = 8 9- 10 - U " 12
io 16 - ») : ' clvt'v, I 5 - (LXX) «
(LXX), 2 8 - 10 - 13 (LXX), 4", 5 9 ,
7 10 , io 3S (LXX), 12 2 : airoh, 6 16 ,
8 8 - 10 (LXX), II 16 , I2 10 - 19 : avry,
7 11 : aira<s, IO 13 : avro, 9 19 .
atpaiplo), IO 4 .
* dcpavTjS, 4 13 .
* &<pav«r/j.6s, 8 13 .
&<peffis, 9 22 , IO 18 .
aiplrj/ii, 2 8 , 6 1 .
a<pi\&pyvpos, 13 8 [T].
a(pl<TT7)n<., 3 12 .
* dcpofioidu), 7 s .
acpop&oo, I2 2 [Paul].
«XP', 4 12 , 6 11 , 3 13 («XP« o5).
/3a7rri<j>i6s, 6 2 , 9 10 .
* Bapd*, 11 32 .
paurikela, I 8 (LXX), II 33 , I2 28 .
PaaiXeis, 7 1 - 2 (LXX), 1 1 23 - 27 .
/3<f/3aios, 2 2 , 3 6 - 14 , 6 19 , 9 17 .
p(j3ai6u, 2 s , 13 9 .
/3f/3a/a«rts, 6 1B [Paul].
/3<?/3tjXos, I2 16 [T].
t/3t/SMo», 9 19 , io 7 (LXX).
{$\a<TTdvw, 9 4 .
/3X<?™, 2 9 , 3 12 - 19 , IO 28 , II 1 - 87 , I2 25 .
£/3oi$0fia, 4 19 .
/Sotj^w, 2 18 .
'ipo-ndds, if.
't)3o\/j( j. »./.), 12 20 .
* j3oT&vri, 6 7 .
/3ovXt$, 6 17 .
/So^Xo/xai, 6 17 .
/3pa X iJs, 2 7 -(LXX) 19 ,
^pw/xa, 9 10 , i 3 ».
fipGxu', 12 16 .
13
23
7 dXa, 5 12 - 13 .
7d/xoj, 13 4 .
7ap (90 times).
* Tedeuv, 1 1 32 ,
t yevea, 3 10 .
* yevea'Koyew, J 6 .
yevv&w, I s (LXX), 5" (LXX),
Hl2(?). 23 #
•yetfw, 2 9 , 6 4- 5 .
* yewpyiu, 6 7 .
77), i 10 (LXX), 6 7 , 8 4 - 9 (LXX),
j j 9. 13. 29. M I2 25.26( LXX ).
yrjp&iTKW, 8 13 .
ylvo/xai (30 times).
7iMio7cw, 3 10 (LXX), 8" (LXX),
io 34 , 13 23 .
*t yv6<pos, 12 18 .
+ 76™, 12 12 .
f 7pd(pw, IO 7 .
yvuv&fa, 5 14 , I2 U .
yvfivds, 4 13 .
7W7J, II 35 .
5d/cpi>, 5 7 , I2 17 .
* Sd/xaXis, 9 13 .
Aaw/5, 4 7 , II 82 .
5<? (67 times).
8£r]ais, 5 7 .
5el, 2 1 , 9 26 , II 6 .
t BeiKvvto, 8 8 .
* SeKdxTj, 7 2 - 4 - 8 - 9 .
* SeKardw, 7 6 - 9 .
Be£i6t (iK SeZiQv), I 13 (LXX), (<?i
deSif), l 3 , 8 1 , io 12 , I2 2 .
* Mos [s.v./.) t 12 28 .
* dipfia, II 37 .
Siafiios, IO 34 , 13 s .
5eo>6s, II 36 .
SetVepos, 8 7 , g 3 - 7 - 28 , IO*.
5^x°Mtt'j ii 31 -
STjXiw, 9 8 , 12 27 (of the Spirit [P]).
* 57}/j.iovpy6s, II 10 .
* Srjwov, 2 16 .
5td, with accusative (17 times).
with genitive (38 times).
diaPalvw, II 29
INDEXES
251
8i&po\os, 2 U .
diativKV, 7 22 , 8 6 - 8 - 10 (LXX),9 4 - IS - 16 -
17 - 20 (LXX), io 16 --'', I2- 4 , 13 20 .
oiaKovtw, 6 ,u .
StaKovta, 1 14 .
5i6.Kpi.ais, 5 14 [Paul].
Sia\4yo/j.ai, I2 5 .
Sta/xaprvpopLai, 2 6 .
t Sia/Litvo}, I 11 .
t didvoia, 8 10 , io 16 .
SiaarfKXw, I2 20 .
" Sidrayfia, II 23 .
;8»otW w », 8 I0 (LXX), g 16 - 17 , io 16
(LXX).
dtd<popos, I 4 , S 6 , 9 10 [Paul].
5i8d<rKa\os, 5 12 -
StSdaKw, 5 12 , 8 1J (LXX).
5t5ax^, 6 2 , 13 9 .
MSw/u, 2 ,3 (LXX), 7 4 , 8 10 (LXX),
io 16 (LXX).
8i£pxo/J.cLi, 4 14 .
SiTf/iofiai, 11 32 .
* dirjveKrjS, 7 s , IO K 12-14 .
* SuKveofiai, 4 12 .
Sfeotos, io 38 (LXX), 11 4 . 12 23 .
Sucauxrfori, i 9 (LXX), 5 13 , 7 2 , u 7 - 83 ,
I2 n .
SiKaiiL/jLara, g 1 - 10 .
12
816, 3 7 - 10 , 6 1 , io 5 , ii 12 - 16 ,
I3 12
,12. 28
* oibpduxns, 9 10 .
8i6ti, ii 8 - 28 .
8lcrTO/j.os, 4 12 .
8ld)KW, I2 14 .
Sok^w, 4 1 , io 29 , I2 10 - 11 .
*t doKi/Aacrta, 3".
Sc5£a, i 3 , 2 7 -(LXX) 9 - 10 , 3 s , 9 5 ,
13 21 .
5o£dfw, 5 B .
SotAeia, 2 15 [Paul].
S^cu, 2 18 , 3 13 , 4 1B , s 2 - \ f\ 9 9 ,
io 1 - n .
dtva/us, i 3 , 2 4 , 6 s , 7 16 , II 11 - 34 .
5vi<a/tt<5w, 1 1 34 [Paul].
Swards, II 19 .
5(yo, 6 18 , io 28 .
* Svffep/nrivevTos, 5 11 .
Swped, 6*.
SQpou (8wpa), s\ 8 3 - 4 , g 9 , n 4 .
idv, f- 7 - (LXX) 15 (LXX), 4 7
(LXX), io 38 (LXX), 13 23 .
* idvirep, 3 14 , 6 3 .
eavTov, 3 13 , 5 3 - 4 - 5 , 6«- 18 , 7 27 ,
9 7 - 14 - 25 , io 25 - 34 , I2 3]6 .
^(SSo/xos, 4 4 .
^rytTw, 7 19 , io 24 .
* £771/05, 7 22 .
<?77i>s, 6 8 , 8 13 .
eyelpw, 1 1 ,9 .
* tyKaivlfa, 9 18 , io 20 .
iyKaraXeiiru), IO 25 , 1 3* (LXX).
t<?7w, I 6 , 2 13 , 5 5 , io 3 ", 12 26 .
e'tfos, io 28 .
el, 2 2 , 3 1, (LXX), 4 3 - 5 -(I-XX) 8 ,
6 14 (LXX), 7»-« 8 4 -\ 9 13 , 11".
e/ /toi, 6 9 .
ei yuij, 3 18 .
t el (ji-fiv, 6 14 .
el ov, I2 28 .
tWor, 3 9 (LXX), ii 8 -i3.28 >
etidip, io 1 .
e//*{, I2 2l (LXX).
t el, I 8 - 12 , 5 8 .
icriv (18 times).
fVyUeV, 3 6 , 4 2 , i 10 - 39 .
icxri, 12 8 .
fWc, i 10 - (LXX) 14 , 7 2 »- 23 ,
11 13 .
eTvai, 5 12 , II 4 , 12 11 .
elivov, I 8 , 3 13 (LXX), 7 9 , io 7 -
(LXX) 30 , 12 21 .
elprjKev, I 13 , 4 3 - 4 , io 9 - IS , 13 s .
elprivri, J 2 , II s1 , I2 14 , 13 20 .
elprjvtKds, I2 n .
et's (75 times).
rl2
12
16
eh, 2 11 , io 12 - 14 , 11
eicd^yw, I 6 .
el<Ta.Ko6u>, 5 7 .
J efoei/xi, 9 6 .
eMpxofuu, 3 11 ' (LXX) 13 - 19 , 4'- 3 -
(LXX) 5 - (LXX) «-io. n 6 19 - 20 ,
gl2. 24. 25 ) IQ 5^
etcroSos, io 19 .
elff<pipu, 13 11 .
elra, I2 9 .
«V (22 times).
eVcacrroj, 3 13 , 6", 8 ai (LXX), 11".
* iKfialvu, 1 1 1B .
ttcfiacns, 13 7 [Paul].
e'Kde'xofiai, io 13 , II 10 .
t iKdiKfjais, IO 30 .
* indoxv, IO 27 .
eW, 7 8 .
Arefroj, 4 2 - « 6 7 , 8 7 - 10 (LXX), io 16 ,
II 16 , 12 25 .
iKft-iu), II 6 , 12 17 .
iKkkvtrla, 2 12 (LXX), 12 23 .
* iKKavddvoi, 12 8 .
f iK.\elirw, I 12 .
<!/cXi5w, 12 3 , I2 5 (LXX).
eKovirlws, io 26 [P].
itcrpdirw, I2 13 [T].
iK<p4pd>, 6 8 .
252
INDEXES
10
.23
£K<pevyw, 2 3 , I2 29 .
f ?K<popos, I2 21 .
t tfXcuop, I 9 .
^Xdffirwi', 7 7 .
t iXtyXU, I2 5 .
t iXarrbw, 2 7 - 9 .
* Ae7X0S, II 1 .
t A^yxw, I2 5 .
4\er)fJ.ojv, 2 17 .
r\eos, 4 16 .
teMnrw, I 12 (*.»./.).
<?\irtfw, II 1 .
AttIs, 3 6 , 6»- 18 , 7 19 .
t ippiva, 8 9 .
ifiol, IO 30 , 13 8 .
* i/j.iraiyfj.6s, II 36 .
t/jLiriirTw, IO 31 .
ifx<pa.v'i^u, 9 21 , II 14 .
^v (65 times).
4vdeiKvu/xi, 6 10 - " [Paul].
^5tKos, 2 2 [Paul].
ivtpyns, 4 1 '- 2 .
£vdvp.T)<jis, 4 12 .
^iavr<55, 9 7 - 25 , IO 1, 3 .
ivla-rrifii, 9 9 [Paul].
£*«<oia, 4 12 [P].
t ivax^w, I2 15 .
^voxos, 2 15 .
^rAXw, 9 20 (LXX), II 22 .
^i-toXi), 7 6 - 16 - ls , 9 19 .
ivrpiizu}, I2 9 .
ft ivrpofj.os, I2 21 .
&Tt/7xdi'W, 7 25 -
* ivvfrpltw, IO 29 .
ivwirioit, 4 13 , 13 21 .
'Ej^x. I! 6 -
t ^d7w, 8 9 .
itipxo/uu, 3 1H , 7 s , " 8 » I3 13
* **«, 5 14 .
^o5os, II 22 .
i\ovala, 13 10 .
iirayyeUa, 4 l , 6 12 - 15 - ,7 , f, „
10 S6 j j 9. 13. 17. 33. 39_
ftrayyAXw, 6 13 , io 23 , n u , 12 26 .
^TraifrxwoA'ai, 2", II 16 .
iird, 5 2 - 11 , 6 13 , 9 17 - 26 , 10 2 , 11":
iirel oOv, 2 14 , 4*.
* tireuraywyr}, J 19 .
Irreira, 7 2 - 27 .
ftrf: accus. 2 7 (LXX), 3', 6 1 , 7 13 ,
8 8 - 10 (LXX), io 18 -(LXX) 21 ,
.18
,21.30
12
in
dat. 2 13 (LXX), 8 16 , 9 10 - 1B
"• 26 , io- 8 (LXX), u 4 - 38 .
genit. i 2 , 6 7 , 7 n ,8 4 - lu (LXX),
11 13 . 12""
-.25
iwlyvutrtt, IO 26 .
t £inypd<pu>, 8 10 , IO 18 .
iTnbeiKvvpn, 6' 7 .
iirifyriw, II 14 , 13 14 .
£Tri8e<ris, 6 2 .
iiridvuiw, 6".
iiriKaktu, II 16 .
iiriKei/xai, 9 10 .
irikafip&ra, 2 16 , 8 9 (LXX).
£iri\ai>dai>oiJ.ai, 6 10 , 13 s - 16 .
* twiXelTTW, II 32 .
f tlriCrK^TTTO/Mll, 2 8 .
* iiriaKMctu, I2 15 [P?].
evtiTTafiai, 1 1 8 .
ZiirtcTTiWus, 13 22 .
^7Ti<7i>»'a.7W777, IO 25 [Paul].
iwireXiu,, 8', 9 8 .
eiriTptrrti), 6 3 .
^7ririryxdvuj, 6 15 , II 33 .
* *7ros, 7 a .
eVoi'pd«'tos, 3 1 , 6 4 , 8 5 , 9 23 . II 16 ,
I2 22 .
en-rd, II 30 .
£pya{o/j.ai, II 33 .
#/>7o^6 10 (i3 21 ): ? m ,i w (LXX),
2 7 (LXX), 3 9 (LXX), 4 3 - 4 -
(LXX) 10 , 6 1 , 9 14 .
£pr}p.la f 1 1 38 .
t? PW oi,3 8 (LXX)".
£pfj.rjv£vu, 7 2 .
%ipvdpbs, II 29 .
tpxofuu, 6 7 , ii 8 , 13' 23 (8 8 , 10 37
LXX).
<?<r0iw, 10 27 , 13 10 .
t ftro/ttu, I s , 2 13 , 8 10 - 12 [3 12 ].
IcrXaTOj, I 2 .
J ^crwrepos (t6 icrdiTepov), 6 19 .
2repos, 5«, 7»-«-", II 38 .
ft-t, 7 10 - "• 1S , 8" (LXX), 9 8 , io 2 ' 17 '
37 (LXX), ii 4 - 32 - 38 , i2 26 -(LXX)
27 (LXX).
iroifj-afa, II 16 .
tfros, I 12 , 3 10 - 17 .
e&ayyeXL^ecrdai, 4 2- 8 .
* evapeurew, 1 1 5 - (LXX) 8 , 13 16 .
evapeaTos, 13 21 [Paul].
* evapioTus, I2 28 .
t evSoKtu, IO 8 - 8 - 38 .
X etderos, 6 7 .
*f evdvrrjs, I 8 .
eC/ccupos, 4 18 .
' e*\d/3eia, 5 7 , 12 28 .
J evXafitofiai, 1 1 7 .
edXff^w, 6 14 (LXX), 7 1 - «• 7 , n 20 --' 1 .
ey\o7^a, 6 7 , I2 17 .
* einrepLcTTaTOS, I2 1 .
INDEXES
253
* einroita, 13 16 .
evplffKu, 4 16 , 9 12 (evpa/xevos), II 5
(LXX), 12 17 .
if&iraS, 7", 9 12 , I0 10 -
Wis, I3 8 -
t^X^P 6s » llS > iq13 -
^X w (38 times).
t*«f, i ls , 8", io 13 .
ttf)Xos, io 27 .
fr>, 2 15 , 3 12 . 4 12 , T 8 - 26 , 9 14 - 17 ,
10 20.31.38 (L XX), I2 9 - ffl .
frjTtw, 8 7 .
t f<50os, I2 18 .
f"i 7 3 - 16 -
&0P, I3 U .
ff, 2«(LXX), IO 28 , II 25 , I2 16 .
*Ho/«oi, IO 29 , II 11 - « l 3 7 - 17 - 24 .
ftflCU), IO 7-9,37 .
ijXiKia, II 11 .
Tj/ttecs (31 times).
Wpa, I 2 , 3»- (LXX) 13 , 4 4 -(LXX)
7. 8> 5 7 f ? 3. 27^ 8 8 - 9 - 10 (LXX),
io'^MLXX) 25 - 33 , 11 30 , I2 1U .
^(tVo*), 2 15 , 7 10 ' 11 , 8 4 - 7 , II 38 , 12 21 .
'H<raO, II 20 , I2 16 [Paul].
tfaos, I2 19 .
0dXa(r<ra, II 12 - (LXX) 29 .
edvaros, 2 9 - 14 - 15 , 5 7 , 7 23 , 9 16 - 18 » " B -
dapptu, 1 3 6 [Paul].
* dear pi fa, IO 33 .
WXiyta, io 7 - (LXX) 9 - (LXX) 10 - S6 )
I3 21 -
* 0fK V <TlS, 2*.
Oikw, io 5 - (LXX) 8 (LXX), 12 17 ,
13 18 .
deixtXios, 6 1 , II 10 .
t0e/xeXi6u>, I 10 .
debs (66 times).
*t depdirwv, 3 5 .
dewpiu, 7 4 .
t d-qpiov, 1 2 20 .
d-qcravpSs, II 26 .
0i77dew, n 28 . 12 s0 (LXX) [Paul].
0\t/3w, II 37 .
0Xty«, IO 33 .
0p<Ws, i 8 (LXX), 4 16 , 8 1 , 12 2 .
dvydrrip, II 24 .
•ffluAXa, 12 18 .
*f dvfj.ia.T7]piov, 9 4 .
0u/a6s, II 27 .
Bwrla, S\ 7", 8 3 , 9 9 - 23 - 26 , IO 1 - 5 -
(LXX) 8 - (LXX) "• 12 - 26 , II 4 ,
15. 16
13
dvciacrrypiov, 7 13 , 13 10 .
IcikwP, I !••*•».
Ido/xat, I2 13 .
»«», 4 1 ", 7 s7 , 9' 2 , I3 12 -
t tfoiJ, 2 13 , 8 8 , io 7 - 9 .
* leparela, J 6 ,
'lepeixu, II 30 .
lepers, 5 6 (LXX), 71. »• n. 14. is. 17.
(LXX) 2 "- 21 - 23 , 8 4 , 9 6 , IO 11 -".
'Iepov<ra\-q/j., 12 22 .
*lepucrtvri, 7 1 '- 12 - 24 .
*'Ie<t>e&e, II 32 .
*lT;<roOs, 2 9 , 3 1 , 4 14 , 6 20 , 7 M , IO 10
{'It)<toG XpKTToD), io 19 , I2 2 - 24 , 13 8
('It/o-oDj X/>wt4s), 13 1 " ^ 2l
('Itjo-oO XptcrroO), = Joshua, 4 8 .
* iKerrjpla, 5 7 .
J tXdcrico/utt, 2 17 .
IXaarripiov, g 5 [Paul].
t IXews, 8 12 .
HtxdTtov, i"< 12 ').
1W, 2 14 - 17 , 4 16 , 5', 6 18 , g 25 , io 9 - 3fi ,
II 35 1 2 s7 IT 1 "' 17 " 19 >
fra mV, 3 U , 4" 6 12 , n 28 - 40 , 12 s - 13 .
'IoWas, 7 14 , 8 8 (LXX).
'IvadK, 1 1 9 - 17 - 18 - (LXX) 20 .
lar-qm, IO 9 - n .
Icrxvpfc, 5 7 . 6' 8 , II 34 .
Icrxvu, 9 17 .
J'lraXfo, 13 24 .
'Iaxnfa, II 21 - 22 .
t /ca7w, 8 9 .
Kaddrrep, 4 2 .
Kadaplfa, 9 14 - "■ B , io 2 .
Kadapi<r/ji6s, I 3 .
Kadap6s, IO 22 .
* KadapoTrjs, 9 13 .
+ Kad-qfiat, 1 13 .
tmxfltfw, i 3 , 8\ io 12 , 12 2 .
KaOUmi/u, 2 7 (LXX?), 5 1 , 7 18 , 8 3 .
jtaMi, 3 7 , 4 3 - 7 , 5 3 - 6 , 8 5 , io 25 , 11 12 .
Kadwairep, 5 4 .
Kaf (54 times).
KdiV, 11 4 .
Kau>6t, (8tatfr)Kij), 8 8 -(LXX) 13 , 9 15 .
Kalirep, 5 8 , 7 5 , I2 17 .
Kaipds, 9 9 - 10 , II 11 - 19 .
t Kairoi, 4 3 .
t /cafw, I2 18 .
KaKelvos, 4 2 .
/ca/cds, 5 14 -
* KaKOvxtu, II 37 , 13 s .
<caX<?a>, 2 U , 3 13 , 5 4 , 9 15 , II 8 - 18
(LXX).
Ka\6s, 5 14 , 6 s , IO 24 , I3 9 - 18 .
(caXcSs, 13 18 .
Kd/nvo), I2 3 .
254
INDEXES
+ K&.V, I2 20 .
KapSla, f- (LXX) 10 - (LXX) 12 - 16 ,
4 7 -(LXX) 12 , 8 10 (LXX), io 16 -
(LXX) 22 , i 3 ».
Kapirds, I2 11 , 13 15 (LXX).
* Kaprepiw, 1 1 27 .
Kard : genit. 6 13 - 16 ; accus. I 10
(LXX), 2 4 - 17 , 3 3 - 8 -(LXX)> 3 , 4 15 ,
5«- (LXX) 10 , 6 20 (LXX), f- "• 16 -
16 - 17 - (LXX) 20 - 22 - 27 , 8 4 - 5 - (LXX) 9
(LXX), 9 B - 9 - 19 - 22 - 25 - 27 , io 1 - 3 - 8 - u ,
ii 7 - 13 , 12 10 .
/cara/3dXXw, 6 1 .
KCLTdpoXri, 4 3 , 9 26 , II 11 .
* Karayuivi^ofiai, II 33 .
* Ka.ra8r]\os, 7 16 .
/cara/caico, 13 11 .
KaraKplvu), 1 1 7 .
KaraXef7rw, 4 1 , II 27 .
KCTavoXicrKW, I2 29 .
/caraco^w, 3 1 , IO 24 .
KaTa7raWw, IO 29 .
KaTcurawis, 3 11, 18 , 4 1
Karairaino, 4 4- (LXX) 8,
t
•t
n
1. 3. 5. 10. n
io .
Karawiraana, 6 19 , 9 3 , IO 20 .
Karatrlvu), 1 1 29 .
Kardpa, 6 8 .
Karapytoj, 2 14 .
Karaprifa, io 5 (LXX), II 3 , I3 :
J
Karacr/cewifw, 3 s - 4
KaTacrKidjtd, 9 s .
KaTd<TK07rOS, II 31 .
Karate iryw, 6 18 .
Kara(f>popio), 12 2
-,2. 6
II'
IO
,23
12
17
Ka-rixu, 3 6 ' 14 »
KaroiKioi, II 9 .
* /cautris, 6 8 .
^ai'XT/^a, 3 6 [Paul].
J xe<pa\aiov, 8 1 .
*tKe0aXis, IO 7 .
kijSutSs, 9 4 , II 7 .
K\7]p0V0fxtd), i 4 - 14 , 6 12 ,
KXrjpovo/xla, 9 15 , II 8 .
K\t]pov6/noi, I 2 (of Christ), 6 17 , II 7 .
kXt)™, 3 1 .
k\Ivu, ii 34 .
/cotv^s, io 29 .
KOLfdu, 9 13 .
Koivuvtu (gen.), 2 14 .
Koivuivla, 1 3 16 .
koi»'wi'6s, io 33 .
Kolrq, 13 4 .
a^k/cicos, 9 19 .
KO^fw, IO 38 , u«. i».s» t
"t K01T7), f.
Koapun6s, 9 1 [T].
<c6ff/*os, 4 3 , 9 26 , io 6 , ii 7 - 38 .
-*2S
Kpariw, 4 14 , 6 18 .
tepdros, 2 14 .
Kpavyrj, 5 7 .
KpdTTWP, I 4 , 6 9 , 7 7 - 19 - M , L ,
IO 34 , iiu-ss.^ I2 m
Kpijua, 6 2 .
/cp^w, io 30 (LXX), 13 4 .
K/jicris, 9 s7 , io 27 .
Kpirris (God), 1 2 s3 .
* KpiTiicds, 4 12 .
t Kp67TTW, I I 23 .
KTi<m, 4 13 , 9 11 .
kvk\6u, ii 30 .
(ci^oj, i 10 (LXX), 2 13 , 7 14 - 21 (LXX),
8 2 - 8 - (LXX) 9 - (LXX) ,0 - (LXX) "
(LXX), io 16 - 30 (LXX), I2 6 - B -
(LXX) 14 , 13 s - (LXX) 20 .
*f /ccDXoi', 3 17 .
KoiXvco, 7 s *!
XaX^a,, I 1 - 2 , 2 2 - 8 - 6 , 3 6 , 4 8 , S 5 » 6 9 ,
7 14 , 9 19
1 1
18 ( I2 24.26 ) I3 7,
,16 -1. J -3. s. y
4 1 3 » / >
8. 11. 29. 85. 36
Xa/x^dvui, 2 2- 3
9 15 - 19 , IO 26 , II
\avddvd), 13 2 .
Xa«5 s , 2 17 , 4 9 , 5 3 ,7 5,11 - 27 ,8 1( >(LXX),
9 7 - 19 , io 30 (LXX), ii 25 , 13 12 .
\arpela, g 1 - 6 .
Xar/jetfw, 8 B , 9 9 - 14 , IO 2 , I2 28 , 13 10 .
Xiyu, I 6 - 7 , 2 s - 12 , 3 7 - 15 , 4 7 , 5 8 - 11 ,
6 u 7 n. 13. 2i ( gi. 8. (LXX) 9 -( LXX)
10 - (LXX) 11 - (LXX) 13 , 9 2- 3 -e-20 j
IO S. 8. 16 ) „H.24.32 ) I2 26 ( ^6.
XetToupytu), io 11 .
X«roup7/a, 8 6 , 9 21 .
* X«Toi'p7£/c(5y, I 14 .
XetToi-p76s, I 7 (LXX), 8 2 [Paul].
Aeirf, 7 5 - 9 .
* AewViKis, 7".
Xiuiv, II 33 .
Xifldfw, II 87 .
t Xt0Oj3oX<?w, I2 20 .
Xoyifrofiai, II 19 .
X^toy (plur. ), 5 12
X6705, 2 2 , 4
2. 12. 13
-11. 18
12
19 j V7. 17. 22
6 1 , 7 J
\0nr6s (rb \0ur6v), IO 13 .
\ovu>, IO 22 .
\V1T7], 12 11 .
J Xvrpuxris, 9 12 .
XvxvLa,, 9 2 .
IxaKpodvixiw, 6 IB .
/xaKpodv/j-ta, 6 12 .
yudXW, 9 14 , io 25 , I2 9 - 13 - 26 .
fiavOdvu), 5 8 .
/u.dci'a, 9 4 .
INDEXES
255
paprvptu, 7 8 - ", I0 1S , II 2 -*- 5 - 39 .
fxaprvpiov, 3 8 .
fidprvs, IO M (LXX), I2 1 .
f fj.a<rTiy6u), I2 6 .
/XCLVTlt, II 36 .
fxdx^pa, 4 12 , II 84 - 87 -
/xeYaXwcriVT;, I 3 , 8 1 .
M*y«, 4 14 , 8 11 (LXX), io 21 - 38 , n 24 ,
I3 2 °-
ptlfar, 6 13 - 19 , 9", II 26 .
^\X«, I 14 , 2 s , 6 5 , 8 s , 9", io 1 - 27 ,
,14
II
8.20 J,!
Ilckx&tet, 5 6 - 10 , 6 20 , 7 U 10 - 1K 1B - "•
aiaibofiai., 8 8 [Paul].
M ^, 1 7 , 3 5 > r 2 - 5 - 8 - 18 - 20 - 23 . 9 6 - 23 ,
IO 11 - 33 , II 15 , I2 9 - 10 ' 11 .
fdv olv, 7 11 , S 4 , 9 1 .
tfvu, 7 3 - 24 , 10 s4 , 1 2 s7 , I3 1 - 14 .
/tepffw, 7 2 .
* fj.epio-fj.6s, 2 4 , 4 12 .
M<>s, 9 5 .
* fieaire <bw, 6 17 .
/ueo-irTjs, 8 6 , 9 1B , i2»[Paul].
t/x&ros, 2 12 .
M erd: genit. 4 16 , 5 7 , 7 21 , 9' 9 , i° 22 - !
II 1
12
14. 17.
j ,17. 2i. 25_
accus. 4 7 - 8 , 7 s8 , 8 1 ' (LXX),
9 3.27 ( , 15. 16. 26 #
* fierdOeffis, 7 12 , II 8 , 12 27 .
fjL€Ta\a/x^dvo}, 6 7 , I2 10 .
f /jLera/xiXofiai., J 21 ,
fierdvoia, 6 1,6 , I2 17 .
peTarldrifu, 7 12 , II 6 .
* fiertireiTa, I2 17 .
/ter^xw. 2 14 , 5 13 . 7 13 -
:^ro X os, i» (LXX), 3'. » 6 4 , I2 8 .
* (leTpioTradto), 5 2 .
^XP', 3 6 - 14 > 9 1U , 12 4 .
/utj (28 times).
f fj-ySe, 12 15 .
fn)dds, IO 2 .
* fj.-q§tirw, 1 1 7 .
* fj,rj\wTi), II 37 .
MijTrore, 2 1 , 3 12 , 4 1 , 9 17 .
/xr)ww, 9 8 [Paul].
MTjre, 7 3 .
fj.ia.lvii), I2 18 .
tM"cp6s, 8", io 37 .
Hifj.tofx.ai, 13 7 .
HifirjT^, 6 12 [Paul].
lu/irfaKu, 2 b (LXX), 8 12 (LXX),
io 17 (LXX), 13 3 .
t fllffio}, I 9 .
* fxio-daTToboala,, 2 2 , IO 35 , II 26 .
* fxicrdaTToBorrfi, II 6 .
fj.vrjtxovev(t), II 18 - 22 , I3 7 .
/xoix<5s, 13 4 .
t fJ-ovoye vri%, II 17 .
/*6iw, 9 10 , I2 2 « (LXX).
fj.6vos, 9 7 .
n6<rxos, 9 12- 19 .
* Ml>eX6s, 4 12 .
tivpids, 12 22 .
Mwwrijt, 3 2 - 3 - 8 -i«, 7", 8 8 , 9 19 , IO 23 ,
II 23 - 24 , 12 21 .
ve K p6s, 6 1 - 2 , Q 14 - 17 , II 19 - 38 , 13 20 .
veicpSu, II 12 [Paul],
i^os, I2 24 .
* vi(f>o$, I2 1 .
J^TTIOS, 5 13 .
void), II 3 .
* v60os, I2 8 .
* vofxoderiu, 7 11 , 8«.
?<*/««, 7 8 - 12- 16- 1»- 28 t 8 4 - 10 (LXX),
9 19 - 22 , io^-'MLXX) 28 .
»0x, 2 8 , 8 6 , 9 8 - 24 , ii 16 , 1 2 s8 .
vwi, 8 8 (*.»./.), 9 26 .
Nwe, II 7 .
* vuOpbi, 5", 6 12 .
Mta 13 2 .
fepos, II 13 , 1 3*.
£77/565, II 29 .
6 (17, t6) (170 times).
* byicos, 12 1 .
656s, 3 10 (LXX), 9 8 , io 20 .
80ev, 2", 3 1 , 7», 8 3 , 9 18 , ii 19 .
oIkos, 3 2 - (LXX) 3 - «•«• (LXX) 6 , 8 8 -
(LXX) 10 (LXX), io 21 , ii 7 .
olliOVflivq, I 6 , 2 5 .
oiKTipfids, IO 23 [Paul].
6X170$, I2 10 .
*t 6X17 Wp^W, I2 8 .
*t dXoflpei/w, II 28 .
t oKoKa&ruifxa, IO 6 - 8 .
6X0J, 3 8 .
(J/*w5w, 3 n - (LXX) i8 , 4 3 (LXX), 6 13 -
16 , 7 21 (LXX).
* 6/xoi6t7]s, 4 15 , 7 15 .
OfAOldct), 2 17 .
ofiotus, 9 21 .
bfxoXoytu), II 13 , 13 18 .
6fxo\oyla, 3 1 , 4 14 , io 23 .
6vet5io~n6s, IO 33 , II 26 , 13" [Paul].
&-o/*a, I 4 , 2 12 (LXX), 6 10 , 13 15 .
oVlJ, II 38 .
Sttov, 6 20 , 9 16 , io 18 .
oVwS, 2 9 , 9 15 .
opdw, 2 3 , 8 8 (LXX), 9 28 , ii 27 , 12 14 ,
13
a
256
INDEXES
t 6pyt, 3 l \ 4 s -
bpiyu, II 16 [T].
ftbpObs, I2 13 .
bpifw, 4 7 .
5p/coy, 6 16 - »
* ipKWfiarla, 7 20 - 21 - M .
«pos,8 5 (LXX), II 33 , I2=°-(LXX) M .
6'y (75 titties).
5<rtos, 7 26 .
S^os, I 4 , 2 15 , 3 s , 7 20 , 8 6 , Q 27 , io 25 - 37
(LXX).
&<TTi0V, I I 22 .
8bt«, 2 s , S 5 - 6 , 9 2 - 9 , io 8 - 11 - 35 , I2 8 , 13 7 .
6cr<pvs, 7 5 - 10
Sra^, I 6 .
8re, 7 10 , 9 17 -
fc-i, 2 6 (LXX), 3 19 , 7 s - "• 17 , S 9
(LXX
I2 17 , 13 18 .
1 10. 11. 12 , n 8
, IO 8 , I I
6. 13. 14. 18. 19
t ot, 3 9 ,
oi (ovk) (61 times).
fo&ri, 8 11 - 1 *, io 17 , 13 15 .
oiSi, 8 4 , 9 llu -» io 8 (LXX), 13 5
(LXX).
oMefc, 2 8 , 6 13 , 7 13 - 14 - 19 , 12 14 .
ovbiwore, IO 1- ll .
ouKtri, IO 18, 26 .
oCv, 2 14 , 4 i- (»»).«. 11. m.m, 7», 8 4 ,
9 1.23 j io 19.S 5j i 3 «( ?)i
oC^-W, 2 8 , I2 4 .
ovpavbs, I 10 (LXX), 4 14 , 7 s6 , 8 1 ,
g 23 - 24 , n as (LXX), I2 23 - 25 - 26
(LXX).
oOros (43 times).
o0r W (s), 4 4 , 5 3 - 5 , 6 9 - ls , g 6 - 28 , io 33 ,
12 21 .
o*Xt\ I 14 . 3 17 -
6<pel\u, 2 17 , 5 s - 12 .
6<pda\fjL6s, 4 13 .
Trd^T/Ma, 2 9 - 10 , IO 32 .
muSela, i2 5 -(LXX) 7 - 8 - u .
* reuSevnfc, 12 9 [Paul].
raidefo, I2 6 -(LXX) 7 - 10 .
raiilw, 2 13 -(LXX) 14 , II 23 .
ird\ai, I .
+ jro\at(Jw, I 11 (LXX), S 13 .
irdXi*, I 5 - 6 , 4 B - 7 - 13 , 5 12 , 6 1 - 6 , IO 30 .
* rar^yvptt, 12 23 .
X iravTe\-qs, 7 25 -
wavrodev, 9 4 .
irdiroTe, 7 s6 -
Tropd : accus. I 4 - 9 (LXX), 2 7 - (LXX)
9 , 3 3 > Q 23 . ll 4,11 ' 12 , 12 24 .
wapdf3a<ns, 2 2 , 9 18 [Paul].
irapapoXri, g 9 , II 19 .
Tapa.yivofj.ai., 9 11 .
19. 25
* irapaSeiy/xari^u}, 6 6 .
t Trapad^xopo-i, 12 s .
irapaLT(o/j.ai, 12
vapaKaXiu, 3 13 , io 25 , 13
irapcLKX-qo-is, 6 18 , 12 5 , 13 22 .
irapaKOT), 2 2 [Paul].
irapa\afj.f3dv<j}, 12 28 .
t+ irapaXi'oj, I2 28 .
irapafj.iv<j), 7 2S .
*f irapairiKpalvu, 3 16 .
*t TrapairiKpacTfj-bi, 3 8- ls .
* TrapairitrTW, 6 6 .
* Trapaw\T]al<i)$, 2 14 .
* irapapiu, 2 1 .
irapacpepw, 13 9 .
irdpeLfxi : rb irapbv, 12 11
pbvra, 13 5 .
19. 22
rd
11. is
t
u
irapep.^o\-q, 1 1 34 , 13
irapeiribtj/uLos, II 13 [P].
irapi-q/ju, I2 12 .
irapoLKiu, II 9 .
irapoSjuo-fxbs, IO 24 .
16
irappijcna, 3°, 4'°, 10
7rds (48 times).
-,19. »
7raerxa, II"
,18 r 8
-.26
,12
t
Trdo-xcj, 2' , 5 , 9-=", 13'
Trar^p, !*•» (LXX), 3 9 (LXX), 5 «
(LXX), 7 10 , S 9 (LXX), 11 23 , I2 7 - 9 .
irarptdpxvi, 7 4 »
warpU, II 14 .
•n-ai'ojuat, IO 2 .
reWw, 2 13 (LXX), 6 9 , 13"- 18 .
ireipa, II 29-36 .
Trapdfw, 2 18 , 3 9 (LXX), 4 1S , n» 7 .
Treipao~fibs, 3 8 .
iripas, 6 16 .
irept : genit. 2 5 , 4 4 - 8 , 5 3 - n , 6 9 , 7 14 ,
9 5 , io 6 - (LXX) 7 - (LXX) 8 - (LXX)
18. 26 T ,7. ^0. 22. 32. 40 jtII. 18
II'
irepiatpth), IO 11 .
t irepi[36\aioi', I 12 [Paul].
irepi.epxoiJ.ai, I 1 37 .
TrepiKaXi'TTTU, g*.
irepiKei.fj.ai, 5 2 , I2 1 .
Tepiirario}, 13 9 .
irepnroitjo-is, IO 39 .
irepLacrbrepov, 6 17 , 7 18 .
irepio-croTe'pujs, 2 1 , 13 19 [Paul].
irTjyfvfj.1, o-.
itt)\Lkos, 7 4 [Paul].
iriKpia, 12 1
TT^KUJ, 6 7 .
t
,15
<U
TTITTTW, 3", 4", I
„3 ,,6
n
iriareiiu, 4-, n°
irio~Tis, 4 2 , 6 1- 12
[ 1
1. S. 4. S. 6. 7.
IO
9. 11
^•(LXX) 39 ,
13. 17. 20. 21. 22.
23. 24. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. ^3. 39
12", 13'
INDEXES
257
wutt6s, 2 17 , 3 2 - 8 , 10 s3 , 11".
irXavdw, 3 10 (LXX), 5 2 , II s8 .
7rXd$, 9 4 [Paul].
ir\dwv, 3 3 , 7 23 , II 4 .
7rX^^os, II 12 .
t TrXrjduvio, 6 14 .
ir\r)po<pop[a, 6 11 , IO 22 [Paul].
ttXovtos, II 26 .
TT.eOMa, I 7 -(LXX) 14 ,2 4 )3 7 , 4 13 , 6 4 ,
9 8 - 14 . 1
,15. 29
12
,9. 23
Toitu, i 2 - 3 - 7 (LXX), 3 2 , 6 s , 7 s7 ,
8 8 - (LXX) 9 (LXX), io 7 -(LXX) 9 -
(LXX) 36 , n 28 , 12 13 - (LXX) »
13 s - (LXX) 17 - 19 - 21 .
irotWXos, 2 4 , 13 9 .
■jtoi/j.t)v (of Christ), 13 20 .
irdXe/uos, II 34 .
7r<5Xts, II 10 - 16 , I2 22 , 13".
tj xoMrns, 8 11 .
n-oXXdjm, 6 7 , 9 s8 - 28 , io 11 .
* iroXv/xepuis, I 1 .
TroXtfs, 2 10 , 5" 9 M , IO 32 , I2 9 - 1B - 2S .
* TrokvTpdTTUS, I 1 .
ffVo, 9 10 [Paul].
irowqp6s, 3 12 , IO 22 .
irdpvi), II 31 .
Tropvos, I2 16 , 1 3*.
+ ir6ppu0ev, 1 1 13 .
7r6(ros, 9 14 , io 29 .
wort, I s - 13 .
7TOO, II 8 .
7T0l>, 2 6 , 4*.
" jrWS, I J
IO 13 . 12
IS
wpdyfia, 6 18 , IO 1 , II 1 .
irptiru, 2 10 , 7 s6 .
irpeo-ftfrrepos, ll 2 (plur.).
* irpifa, II 87 .
7T/56, II 5 .
■rrpo&yo}, 7 18 .
irp6j3a.Toi>, 13 20 .
* wpopXtTrw, II 40 .
Trp6S V Xos, 7 14 [T].
* Trp65pofj.ot, 6 20 .
irpoepio, 4 7 .
irp6dt<ris, 9 2 .
Trp6Kfifi,ai, 6 18 , I2 1-S .
7iy>6s : accus. I 7, 8 - ls , 2 17 , 4 18 , C 1 *
7 ' 14 , 6", 7 21 , 9 18 - 20 (LXX), ic
(LXX), ii 18 , I2 4 - 10 - 11 , 13 13 .
* irpo<ra.yopev<j), 5 10 .
irpoaS^xofiai, IO 34 , 1 1 35 .
irpoaipxoiiai, 4 16 , 7 25 , io 1 - M , II s ,
j 2 18.22
irpotret/xo/uai, 13 18 .
irpoatx 03 ! 2l > 7 13 -
irpdacaipos, II 28 .
»P»«wfe, I 6 (LXX), n».
17
5.
16
*t TrpoaoxMfa, 3 10, ".
TTpO<TTl0T]fll, I2 19 .
* Trp6<r<pa.Tos, io 20 .
■xpotHptpw, 5 1 - 3 - 7 , 7 27 , 8 3 - 4 , 9 7 - 9 - 14 -
23. 28 IQ 1. 2. 8. 11. 12 j j4. 17 , 2 7_
wpo<r<p'op&, io 8 - (LXX) 8 -(LXX) 10 -
14. 18_
* wp6<Tx v<Tli > ii 28 -
irpdffdOTTOV, 9 24 .
irpbrepos, 4 8 , 7 17 , IO 32 .
irpo(pi]Tt]i, I 1 , II s2 .
irpwrov, 7 2 -
irpwros, 8 7 - 13 , 9 1 - 2 - «• 8- 18 - 18 , io 9 .
* irpurordKia, I2 18 .
7rpwr6roKos, I 6 , II 28 , 12 23 .
7t^Xt;, 13 12 .
wvp, I 7 (LXX), IO 27 , II 34 , I2 18 - 29
(LXX).
7TWS, 2 3 .
'PadjS, II"
pdpdos, i 8 (LXX), 9 4 , 11 31 (LXX).
fiarrlfa g 18 - 19 - 21 , io 22 .
pavTi<r/j.6s, I2 24 [P].
prjfw., I 3 , 6 8 , II s , 12 1 *.
tplfo, I2 18 .
* <ra(3 par icr fids, 4 9 .
0-aXetfw, I2 28,27 .
•t ZaXiJ/t, 7 1 - «.
t (rdX7Tt7|, 12 19 .
+ 2aM0wJX, II 82 .
•Sajtt^cfo, ii 32 .
o-d/j/ctvos, 7 18 [Paul].
«r«ipf, 2 14 , 5 7 , 9 10 - 13 , io 20 , 12 9 .
"Z&ppa, II 11 .
crfifrvvfu, 11 84 .
Ww, 12 26 .
ffrj/xeiov, 2*.
afatpov, i 8 (LXX), 3 7 - (LXX) »■ "
(LXX), 4 7 (LXX), 5 8 (LXX), 13 8 .
Xiuiv, I2 22 .
OTceOos, 9 21 .
«iji»ij, 8 2 - 8 , 9 2 - »• 8 - »• »• «, 1 1», 1 3".
OTCld, 8 8 , IO 1 .
t ffK\r)pvv(jj, 3 8 - 1J - 1B , 4 7 .
oWp/ta, 2 16 , II 11 - 18 (LXX).
cririJXoto«', 1 1 38 .
cnro56s, 9 13 .
(TTrouSd^w, 4 11 .
airovSri, 6 11 .
* (TTd/XfOS, g 4 .
(rrdffis, 9 8 .
oravpbs, 12*.
irrej'df'ui, 13 17 .
orepeis, 5 12-14 .
t <rre<pav 601, 2 1 ' 9 [T].
258
INDEXES
r-12
<rr6p.a, II 83 - 34 .
t(r«J, i«-8-1<>-"-1 2 , 2 7 - 12 , 5 B - 8 , 6 14 ,
7 17 - 21 , 8 6 , io 7 - 9 , ii 18 , i3 e .
* ffVyKCLKOVxtb), II 25 .
avyKepdvvvfii, 4 2 [Paul],
ffvyK\y]pov6iJios, II 9 .
* <rv(J.iradtw, 4 1 *, IO 84 .
ffV/M<p4pU>, I2 10 .
J <rw<xi'Tdw, 7 1 * 10 -
* <TWa7r6\\KyU(, 1 1* 1 ,
* ffvvdiu, 13 8 .
rwelSrpis, 9 9 - 14 , IO 2 - », 13 18 .
* ffvveiri/MapTvptit), 2*.
ffwriXeia, g' x .
■fffwreXiu, 8 8 .
X <rx.e86v, 9 122 .
<ntfw, 5 7 , 7 25 .
a&fut, ioMLXX) 10 - 22 , 13 s - ».
wrrjpla, l» 2 3 - l0 , 5 9 , 6 9 , g 28 , II 7 .
t rdf is, 5 6 - 10 , 6 20
raCpos, 9 1 *, IO 4 .
19. 23
,11. 17
T&XI-OV, 13
t<*, i 3 , 2 4 - » 4 12 , S 1 ' 7 ' 14 . 6 s ' 4> 5> 19 >
gs >g i.s.».» I0 ss ) „» I2 n.
WXeios, 5", 9 U .
reAeidrT/s, 6 1 [Paul].
Te\e*6«, 2 10 , S 9 , 7 19 - 28 , 9 9 , IO 1 - 14 ,
II 40 , 1 2 s3 .
J reXeluMTts, 7 U -
* TeXflWTTJS, I2 2 .
TeXeirrdw, II 22 .
tAos, 3 8 - 14 , 6 8 - » 7».
ripas, 2 4 .
f TeacapaKovTa, 3 9, 17 .
Texvirr)s, II 10 (God).
ttjXikoOtos, 2 .
tWijaw, i" 13 (LXX), io 13 (LXX).
tIktu, 6 7 .
ti M t), 2 7 -(LXX) 9 , 3 3 , 5 4 -
rlfiioi, 13 4 .
TiM<*0eos, 1 3°.
* Ti/jLwpLa, IO 29 .
Tfa, i B - 18 , 2 6 (LXX), 3 1S - 17 - 18 , 5 18 ,
7", ii 82 , 12 7 , 13MLXX).
ra, 2 8 - 7 -(LXX) 9 , 3«- 18 -» 4 1,6 - 7 -
u i 5 4,12 , 8 3 , io 28 - 27 - 28 , ii 40 , i2 1B -
16 , I3 2 -
roiyapouv, 12 1 [Paul].
toLvvv, 13 13 .
TotoCros, 7 s6 , 8 1 , II 14 , 12 s , 13 16 .
* rofxwTepos, 4 12 .
t6ttos, 8 7 , ii 8 , 12 17 .
TOCVVTOS, I 4 , 4 7 , 7~, io 25 , I2 1 .
T<5Te, io 7 -(LXX) 9 , I2 26 .
■66
toO: infin. 2 18 , S 12 , IO 7 - (LXX) 9
(LXX), ii 8 .
* rpdyos, g 12 - 13 - 19 , IO 4 .
rpdve^a, 9 2 .
* TpaxnMfai, 4 13 .
fTpets, IO 28 .
Tptyu, 12 1 .
rplfioXos, 6 s .
* Tpl^fjVOS, II 2 *.
rpdwos, 13 8 .
rpo<prj, 5 12 - 14 .
"frpox'ti, I2 13 .
Tiryx ( *'' c,, > 8 6 , 1 1
* rvfiwavl^u, 1 1 38 .
tTihros, 8 6 .
iiSwp, 9 19 , IO 22 .
J v€t6s, 6 7 .
vlfc: (Christ), i 2 - 8 -(LXX) 8 , 3 8 ,
4 14 , 5 8 - (LXX) 8 , 6«, 7 3 - 28 . io 29 :
(men) ) 2 8 -(LXX) lu ,7 6 ) ll 21 - 1!2 - 24 ,
i2 6 -«-(LXX) 7 - 8 .
fatets (34 times).
f vfiviu, 2 12 .
wra/co* 5 s -
viraicotiu, 5 9 > Il8>
J Qirapfa, IO 34 .
vwdpxo), IO 34 .
* virelKU), 13 17 .
f virevavrlos, IO 27 [Paul].
for*/) : genit. 2 9 , 5 1 , 6 20 , 7 M - ", 9 7 '
**, io' 2 , 13 17 : accus. 4 12 .
{nrepavu, g s .
M : genit. 2 3 , 3 4 , 5 4, 10 . 7 7 , 9 19 .
ii 23 , I2 3 - B (LXX).
vwdSetyfia, 4 11 , 8 5 , g 23 .
t inroK&Ta>, 2 s .
inrontvw, IO 32 , i2 2 -*- 7-
virofjiovri, io 36 , I2 1 .
t i'7ro7r<55ioj' ) I 13 , IO 13 .
inrboTa.ais, I 8 , 3 14 , 1 1 1 [Paul],
t vn-ooTeXXw, IO 38 .
* inrocrToX-fi, 1 s9 .
t inro<TTpt<pu), 7 1 -
biroT&aau, 2 5 - 8 (LXX), 12*.
ii£r(raj7ros, 9 19 .
varepiui, 4 1 , II 87 , I2 16 .
florepos ({JcrTfpov), I2 11 .
i>\[/ijX6s, I 3 , 7 28 .
t fii/aoros, 7 1 .
ipalvw (<paiv6/j.eva), II*.
ipavepdw, g 9 - 2S .
* {pavrdfa, I2 21 .
4>apaw, II 24 .
rtioi, 1 3 , 6', 9 16 , i2» I3».
<f>evya>, 1 1 84 .
INDEXES
259
<(> m l, 8".
<t>i\a8(;\<p[a, 13 1 .
<£i\o£eWa, 13 2 [Paul].
t<pW, I 7 .
<poptovai, 4 1 , n 23 - ", I3 B (LXX).
*<Popep6s, IO 27 - 81 , I2 al .
tfx^oj, 2 18 .
<pbvos, II 87 .
<ppdff<TU3, II 33 [Paul].
<pv\ai<J), II 36 .
0i/Xt), 7 13 - 14 .
tj 01/W, I2 1S .
M 3 7- (LXX) 1B (LXX), 4 7
(LXX), I2 19 - 28 .
^urtfw, 6 4 , io 32 .
X apd, io 34 , I2 2 -", 13".
* x*pai<rVP, I s -
X<ipis, 2 9 (j. »./.), 4 16 . IO 29 , I2 18 - 28 ,
,39.26,
X«Xos, 11 12 , I3 1S (LXX).
X d P , I 10 (LXX), 2 7 (LXX), 6 s ,
8 9 (LXX), io 31 , 12 12 (LXX).
11. 24
X«po7rcn7?Tos, 9
Xeipuv, IO 29 .
* x e P 0V P^ v i 9*-
Xpet'a, 5 12 , 7 11 , IO 86 .
Xpvua-Tlfa, 8", II 7 , 12 s .
Xp.ar.5f, 3 «- 14 , 5 s , 6', 9 «."-«.«
io lu , 11 18 , 13 s - 21 .
tx/>k>. l9 -
t xP°"'f w > IoS7 -
XP<W, 4 7 , 5 12 , il w .
Xpucreoi, 9*.
Xpvalov, 9*.
Xw\6$, I2 18 .
X^ptfw, 7 26 -
Xupls, 4 15 , 7 7 - 40 , g 7 - 18 - 22 - 28 , io 28 ,
II 6 - 40 , I2 8 - 14 .
\f/ev8op.ai, 6 18 .
^TjXa^dw, I2 18 .
^i/XiJ, 4 12 , 6 19 , io»-(LXX)» 12 s ,
17
13
S*e, 7 8 , I3 14 -
As, i n - (LXX) 12 (LXX), 3* ».«■•■
(LXX) »■ (LXX) 1B (LXX), 4»
(LXX), 6 19 , 7 9 , 1 1 912 - (LXX)
27. 29 j 2 »- 7. 16. 27 j -,3. 17_
iufftl, I 12 .
UXTTTtp, 4 1W , 7 s7 , 9 M .
axrTe, 13°.
w<pe\iu, 4 2 , 13*.
II. SUBJECTS AND AUTHORS.
Aaron, 63 f.
Abbott, E. A., 67.
Abel, xlii, 163 f., 218 f.
Ablutions, 75, 144 f.
Abraham, xv, 37, 85 f . , 168 f., 224.
Access to God, xlii f-, 60, 125, 143 f. ,
219.
Adjectives, lx.
Aeschylus, 29, 66, 134.
Age, old, 72.
Agriculture, metaphors from, 81.
Alexandrian Church, its attitude to-
wards "Hebrews," xviiif.
Alford, 212.
Alliteration, lx, 57, 101, 199, 216,
etc.
Altar of incense, 1 14 f.
Anastasius Abbas, 26.
Anchor, metaphor of, 88 f.
Angels, 9f., 16, 18, 21 f., 100, 216 f.
Anthology, the Greek, xix, 89.
Aorist participle, use of, 31, 121.
Apocalypse of John, the, xlvii, 1 14,
164, 193.
Apollinarius, xix.
Apostasy, xxiv, 39, 43, 77, 82, 149,
180.
Apuleius, 144.
Aristophanes, 70, 150, 157.
Aristotle, lvi, 29, 60, 85, 151, 197.
Ark of covenant, 1 1 5 f.
Armenian version, lxxi, 4, 17, etc.
Arnold, Matthew, xxxv, xxxix, 206.
Article, 47, 88.
Assonance, lx, 87, 96, 100, etc.
Atheism, 167.
Atonement, Day of, xxxvii, 63, 117.
Augustine, 43. 103, 172, 177, 185, 216.
Aurelius, Marcus, IO, 72, 81, 167,
174, 181, 228.
Awe, xxxvi, lxiii, 218 f., 223.
Bacher, W., 91.
Backwardness, 71.
260
INDEXES
Bakhuyzen, Van de Sande, 96.
Balzac, 189.
Baptism, 75, 144 f.
Barak, 185.
Barnabas, and the authorship of
"Hebrews," xviiif.
Barnabas, Epistle of, xiv, xxviii, 52,
79, 148, 178, etc.
Baruch, Apocalypse of, 12, 106, 114,
162, 213, 221, etc.
Beneficence, 237 f.
Bengel, 87, no, 139, 184, 194, 211,
227.
Bennett, G. N., 215.
Bentley, 33, 39, 95, 195.
Beza, 37, 66, 188.
Bezaleel, 106.
Bischoff, A., 241.
Blass, lix, 42, 54, 66, 69, 73, 113, 115,
165, 211, 218, 242.
Bleek, 24, 2 18.
Blood in sacrifices, xxxviif., xlii.
Blood of Jesus, the, xlif., 123 f.,
243-
Bousset, xliv.
Box, G. H., 9, 213.
Brandt, W., 161.
Brehier, 6.
Brotherly love, 84, 224.
Brown, T. E., 23.
Browning, Robert, 47, 202.
Bruce, A. B., 41, 66, 76, 135.
Burton, E. D., 31, 156.
Cain, 92, 163 f.
Calvin, xxxivf., 4, 8, 19, 37, 59, 87,
158, 177. 179. 243-
Campbell, Macleod, 26, 40, 196, 197.
Canon, " Hebrews " in the NT, xix f.,
lxx.
Carlyle, xxxvi.
Carlyle, A. J., xii, xiv.
Castellio, 37.
Censer, the golden, 115.
Chrysostom, lxxiii, 2, 7, 31, 48, 7°,
153, 159, 179, 194, 216, 220, 240,
242.
"Christ," lxiii, 14.
Church, the, 4, 33, 39, 48.
Cicero, 27, 106, 178, 210, etc.
City of God, 170, 216.
Clement of Alexandria, xv, 46, 47,
125, 192, 206, 216, 217.
Clement of Rome, xiii, xiv, xix,
xxii, 8, 140, 165, 184, 189, 213.
Clement, Second (homily of), xiv,
xxviii, 236, etc.
Confidence, religious, 44, 48, 229.
Contentment, 229.
Conybeare, F. C, lxxi, 200.
Cosmas Indicopleustes, 37, 143, 154.
Courage, 229.
Covenant, Ideas of the, xxvf., xl,
107 f., 127.
Coverdale, 104, 142.
Creation and Christ, 5, 6, I5> 23 f.,
30, 159, 161 f.
Cromwell, 73-
Crbnert, 61, 104, 178, 229.
Crucifixion, 80, 197, 235.
Cyprian, 75.
Dante, 46, 160.
Date of " Hebrews," xvi, xxi, 45.
Davidson, A. B., xxxi, 2, 38, 56, 88,
132, 177, 182, 198, 212.
Death, 35 f., 133.
Delitzsch, 143.
Demetrius, 245.
Denney, James, liii, 6, 124, 139.
Devil, the, 11, 34 f.
Didache, the, 75, 113, 239.
Diognetus, Epistle to, xxii, xlix, 232.
Discipline, 64, 66, 67, 201 f.
Dods, Marcus, 25, 125.
Dryden, xlvi.
Education, 199 f.
Endurance, 85, 199 f., 210.
Enoch, 165 f.
Ephraem Syrus, lxxi, 58.
Epictetus, 35 (., 71, 156, 193, 196,
etc.
Erasmus, xix, 79, 97, 236, 245.
Esau, 81, 210 f.
Eschatology, xxxiii, xxxiv, liv, 4, 16,
134, etc.
Eucharist, xxxiii, 128, 234.
Euripides, 56, 73, 81, 82, 83, 173.
Eustathius, 2.
Examples, 85, 193, 231.
Ezra, Fourth book of, 12, 53, 213.
Faith, xliiif., 50, 85, 157 f., 160 f . ;
of Jesus, xliv, 33, 192 f, 196.
Fatherhood of God, xxxv, 30, 201 f.
Fear, 35, 168, 179, 181.
Field, Dr., 46, 171.
Fire, metaphor of, 84, 150, 223.
Fitch, Sir Joshua, 93.
Fourth Gospel, xlix, 6, 7, 168.
France, Anatole, xxiv.
Friendship, 226.
Fronto, 237.
INDEXES
26l
Genitive absolute, the, lxi, no, 190.
Gethsemane, 33, 39, 66, 198.
Gideon, 1S5.
Gilmour, James, 80.
God, as creator, 51, 162 f. ; as Father,
xxxv, 30; as Judge, liv, 150!". ;
as transcendent, xxxvi.
Goodrick, A. T., 161.
Gosse, Edmund, xxx.
Grace, 26 f.
Greek fathers, interpretation of
"Hebrews" in, 26, 37, 48, 128,
159, etc.
Green, T. H., 211.
Gregory of Nazianzus, 221.
Gregory of Nyssa, 8.
Grotius, 79.
Grouping of MSS, lxxii.
Growth, 72 f.
Habakkuk, 157 f.
Haggai, 221.
Hands, Laying on of, 75.
Hardy, Thomas, 175.
Harnack, 73, 148, 226.
Heaven, 60.
"Hebrews," meaning of the title,
xv.
" Heirship," liii, 5.
Hellenistic Judaism, lxiii, 18.
Hermas, xiv, xviii, 217, etc.
Herwerden, 51.
Hickie, W. J., 19.
Hicks, 22.
Holtzmann, O., 233.
Holzmeister, 3.
Hope, 33, 44, 85, 98.
Hort, 136, 232, 243.
Hospitality, 224 f.
Household of God, 42.
Image of God, the, 6.
Impossible things, the four, 76.
Individualism, 147.
Infinitive, the epexegetic, 63; for other
uses of the infinitive, see 35, 47,
83, 96.
Inns, 224 f.
Inspiration, 22, 44, 150.
Insubordination, 239.
Intercession of saints and angels,
xxxix, xli, 16, 100, 213.
Isaac, 178.
Isaiah, martyrdom of, 188, 189.
Isidore, 128.
Isokrates, lvi, lvii, 194, 204.
Italy, xxi, 246 f.
Jacob, 178.
Jebb, R. C, 224.
Jephthah, 185.
Jeremiah, xl, 107 f., 139 f., 188.
Jerome, 26, 81, 166, 202, 239.
Jesus, birth of, lii ; death of, xxxivf.,
xxxix, 27 f. ; human characteristics
of, xxxvi, xliii f., 65, IOI, 192 f. ;
names of, lxiii ; prayers of, 66 ;
priesthood of, xxv f., 98 f. ; teach-
ing of, 19; as Son, xxiiif., xlf.,
n, 66 f., 164, etc.
Joseph, 178. .
Josephus, xxii, 130, 163, etc.
Joshua, 43, 52, 183.
Joy, 154; of Jesus, 14, 196.
Jubilees, Book of, 91, 136, 170.
Judaism, xxvi f.
Judith, 186.
Junius, P., 17, 194, 215.
Juristic terms, 87, 97, III, 127 f.,
138.
Justin Martyr, xiv, xlix, II, 33, 41,
75. 99, 164, 239.
Justinian, 5.
Keble, 229.
Kennedy, H. A. A., xl, lv, 123, 209.
Kingdom of God, xxxiii.
Kogel, Julius, xxvii.
Kypke, x, 6l, 203, 215, 222.
Lactantius, 7, 42, 93.
Lake, Kirsopp, lxx.
Latin Versions, lxix, 91, 155, 171,
182, 225.
Law, the, 96 f.
Levitical priesthood, 94, 96.
Libations, 1 19.
Living God, the, 47, 54, 152.
Logos, the, xxxiv, xlvii, xlix, 6, 54 f.
Loofs, 218.
"Lord," liv, lxiii.
Love, xxxv, xxxvi, 82, 146 f.
Lucian, 20, 56, 212, etc.
Lucretius, 36.
Macalister, R. A. S., 122.
Macaulay, xxx.
Maccabean martyrs, 152, 183 f.,
1 86 f . , 189, 192, 196.
Maccabees, Fourth book of, 59> 176,
192.
Mackintosh, H. R., 1.
MacNeill, H., xliv.
Marett, R. R., 123.
Marriage, 226 f.
262
INDEXES
Martial metaphors, 15, 140, 198.
Maximus of Tyre, 34, 53, 154, 156,
195, 204.
Mediation, 107.
Melanchthon, xxi.
Melchizedek, xxxiif., 90 f.
Menander, 3, 7, 85.
Menegoz, xxi, 159.
Merits of the fathers, xxxix, 229.
Michael, 37, 100, 107, 185.
Milk, metaphor from, 70 f.
Miracles, 19 f.
Mixed metaphors, 89.
Money, 228 f.
Montefiore, C. G., xxxvii, 77.
Moses, 40/., 107, 216 f.
Moulton, J. H., 94, 136, 176, etc.
Muratorian Canon, xv.
Musonius Rufus, 35 et passim.
Mystery-religions, li, 75, 148, 233.
Mysticism, livf., 9, 170, 181, 191,
234-
"Name," 8.
Nestorians, 26.
Noah, 167 f.
Nominative for vocative, 13, 138.
Norden, 30.
Novatians, xx.
Oath of God, 86 f., 99.
Obedience of Jesus, 67 f.
Odes of Solomon, 34, 147, 196, 207.
Oecumenius, lxxiv, 26, 74, 99, 128.
Officials of the church, 230 f.
Old Testament, use of, xvi, lxii, 45,
129, 215 f., etc. ; argument from
silence of, 92.
Optative mood, 243.
Origen, on authorship of " Hebrews,"
xviii f. ; on interpretation of, 25,
70, 80, 81, 129, 131, 165, 176, 188.
Parables of Jesus, 5, 50; Jewish, III.
Paronomasia, 29, 66, 154, etc.
Participles, use of, 32, 240.
Patience, 157, 169 f.
Patria polestas, 203 f.
Paul, and the authorship of
"Hebrews," xviii, xxix ; and
author of "Hebrews," xxxix f. ,
xlviii, 10, 18, 34, 126, 155, 197,
216, etc.
Paulinus of Nola, 191.
Peace, 205 f., 242.
Peake, A. S., 181, 235.
Pearson, A. C., 133, 210.
People of God, the, xxxviii, 39, etc.
Perdelwitz, xxvii, 244.
Perfect tense, lix, 91, 94, etc.
Persecution, 36, 153 f.
Peter, First Epistle of, xv, xvii,
xxxvi, lxiv, 36, 124, 175, etc.
Pfleiderer, Hi, 233.
Philo, xxxiii, xxxv, xlix, lxif., 4 *
passim.
Philosophical ideas, xxxif., 106.
Pilgrims, I74f.
Platonism, xxxi, 102, 152.
Polykarp, 80.
Praise, 33, 236.
Prayer, 241.
Pre-existence of Christ, 5 f.
Prepositions, 4, 9, 17, 19, 29 f., 45,
63, 96, no, in, 120, 126, 129,
161.
Present tense, use of the, xxii.
Priesthood of Jesus, xxvf., xxxix f.,
xlivf., etc.
Priests, 95 f. , 144.
Primasius, 27, 136, 164.
Prisoners, 154, 225.
Promise, God's, 85 f. , 190 f.
Prophets, the OT, 2 f.
Psichari, 20.
Purdy, Professor, xxvi f.
Pythagoras, 71, 89.
Quintilian, 71, 81, 231.
Quotations from the LXX, lxxii.
Index III.
Set
Rabbinical interpretations of the OT,
7, 12, 32, 46, 52, 77, 81, etc.
Radermacher, 53, 105, 128.
Rahab, 184, 225.
Ransom, 126.
Reiske, J. J., 88, 125.
Religion as worship, xlivf., 125.
Rendall, F., 25.
Repentance, 74; no second, 77 f.,
212 f.
Resch, 72.
Rest of God, the, 45 f.
Resurrection of Jesus, xxxviii f., 237,
242.
Retribution, 46, 149.
Reuss, 29, 42.
Revelation, 2, 55.
Reverence, xxxvi, 66.
Reward, 167.
Rhythm in style, lvif., 159, 209, etc
Riggenbach, 71, 218, 246.
Ritschl, 39.
INDEXES
263
Sabatier, xxxii.
Sacerdotal metaphors, 34, 60, 144,
Sacrifice of Christ, xxxivf., xliif.,
inf., 131 f. ; in OT ritual, xxxv f.,
xlii., 233.
Samson, 185, 186.
Schoettgen, 18, 52, 79.
Schultz, 149.
Scott, E. F. , xxxiii, 73.
Scott, Sir Walter, 187.
Sedulius Scotus, lxxiv, 5, 182.
Seeberg, 37, 38, 194, 219, 244.
Selwyn, E. C, 215.
Semitisms, lxii.
Seneca, 7, 36, 57, 60, 83, 106, 182,
226, 245, 246.
Septuagint. See Old Testament.
Shakespeare, 22.
Shame, xxii, 153, i8of., 197, 236.
Simcox, W. H., lxiv.
Sin, 8, 19, 39, 62, 74, 117, 126 f.
Sinai, theophany at, 18, 214 f.
Sinlessness of Jesus, 32, 123 f.
Sins, unpardonable, 63, 79 f., 148 f.
Smith, W. Robertson, xv, xxxviii, 5,
9f., 18, 34,67.
Son of Man, xlix, 23.
Souter, A., xxi.
Spirit, the human, 56; the Holy, 18,
19, 20, 44, 75, 78 f., 117, 151.
Spitta, F., 3, 233.
Starkie, 181.
Stephen, speech of, lxii, 18, 106.
Stewart, H. L., 190.
Stoicism, 30, 59, 69 f., 72, 154, 182.
Stuart, Moses, 25.
Suetonius, 57, 99.
Sufferings of Jesus, xxxviii, 1, 20 f.,
27 f., etc. ; of men, 28, 39.
Sumerian religion, lii, 106.
Symbolism, xlvi f.
Sympathy of Jesus, 37 f. , 59 f.
Syriac versions, Ixxi, 36, etc.
Tears of Jesus, 65.
Temple, the Jewish, xvi, xxii.
Temptation, 36, 59.
Temptation of Jesus, the, 38 f., 59.
Tertullian, xvii, xviii, 75, 79, 165,
166, 223, 235.
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
xli, xlvii, etc.
Textual problems, lix, lxivf., 26 f.,
9of., ic»9f., 135, 171, 188, 198,
214.
Thekla, 229.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, lxxiii, 26.
Theodoret, lxxiv, 35, 93, 145, 195,
198.
Theodotion, 10, 129.
Theophylact, 87, 107, 128, 194, 216.
Timotheus, 244.
Tithes, 91 f.
Torrey, C. C, xxix.
Tucker, T. G., 225.
Tyndale, 13, 66, 82, 159.
Union with Christ, livf., 32, 47.
Unworldliness, 235.
Upanishads, 15.
Valckenaer, x, xxviii, n, 21, 175,
222.
Variety in revelation, 2.
Vaughan, C. J., 80.
Vision of God, 181, 209.
Vocation, 67.
Volz, xlix.
Vulgate, lxixf., if., 27, 62, 65, 109,
140, etc.
Warneck, G., 82.
Weiss, B., lxxiii, no, 207.
Western Church, attitude towards
" Hebrews," xixf.
Wetstein, 57, 190, 195, 197.
Wickham, E. C, 13, 36, 79, 127.
Williams, C. R., xxix.
Windisch, 25.
Wisdom, the Book of, xxxi, lii, lvii,
7, 34, 90, 106, 166, etc.
Women, 184.
World, creation of the, 5f., 30
I59f. ; end of the, 15, 52, 221.
"World," The, 168.
Worship, xliiif., 11, 125, 237.
Wrath of God, xxxv, 48.
Wrede, W., xxix, 70, 244.
Zahn, Theodor, xviii, xx, 147, 246.
Zimmer, F., 14, 21 f., 30, 33.
264
INDEXES
III. QUOTATIONS OR REMINISCENCES OF
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Genesis.
Numbers.
Proverbs.
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
I 12 . . . . 8l
12 7
42
3 m.
• • • •
200
2» . .
51 f.
24 s
I05
3 21
• • • •
17
317.18 .
81
4 2 «
• • • •
207
4 4 " 8 .
163
Deuteronomy.
5 24 •
6 13 '- .
I2 1 '- .
I4 18-20
165 f.
168
169
. 90 f.
4 nf.
4 24
5 23 '-
9 '9
214
223
215
216
317
26 11
Isaiah.
33
x 5°
18 2 .
-19
. 224 f.
17 6
150
26 20
157
2 1 12 .
22 18 '- .
.,4
i77
176
29 18
-» j 6. 8
J 1
209
229
4I 8. 9
S3 12
37
134
23 •
i73
210 f.
212
32 35
151 f.
63 11
242
23.81. _
27 a8 .
j 2
152
11
47 9 •
i73
Jeremiah.
47 31 •
50 26 .
178
178
Joshua.
-, j 31f.
109 f.
, 141
I 8
229
Exodus.
Hosea.
2 2, s .
2 14f - .
179
181
2 Samuel.
w
• * * •
236
io 21 '- .
214
7"
10
I2 2 "- .
I9 12 '- .
182
214
Psalms.
Habakkuk.
I9 18 .
220
2 7
• • • 9, 64
2 s * 4
• • • •
»S7
2 4 3 '- .
129 f.
8 5f.
22
25, 26
• "3 f -
22 23 .
33
Haggai.
25 40 .
30 10 .
i°5
■ "7
40 7 -»
4S 7 ' 8
137 f-
. 12 f.
2«
-»2l
221
33 7 •
• 105, 236
95 7 -' 1
. 43 f-
2
• • • •
221
I02 2b_2
3
. 14 f.
Leviticus.
IO4 4
12
i6 1 '- . . . 8gf., 117
no 1
■ IS. HO
Zechariah.
16" .
I
235
no 4
64, 96
9 U
■ • • •
242
Moffatt, James. BS
Epistle to the Hebrews. *+91
.16
TVNews
OpenLibrary